Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Redundancies

Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to help employees of companies affected by large-scale redundancies to find new work.

David Cairns: What plans he has to help people affected by large-scale redundancies to find new work.

Nick Brown: We have developed the rapid response service to support people affected by significant redundancies and help them make the transition to sustainable new jobs. This enhanced service allows a flexible response based on local need. I am pleased to announce that, on 1 April, the rapid response service became fully operational, supported by a further £6 million investment over two years.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He might recall the major threat of a factory closure in my constituency just under a year ago. Indeed, his Department helped considerably in creating a renaissance for the factory's prospects. However, many people still faced redundancy and a lot of those who came to my surgery thought that the Government should work closer with the citizens advice bureaux and local agencies that have local knowledge to help them through that difficult period when they have just been made redundant and are looking for new work. Can the Minister comment on working in conjunction with local agencies to help people to find their way back into work?

Nick Brown: My hon. Friend makes a fair point and I am grateful for what he says about the work of officials in difficult redundancy rounds. Although it may not seem like it at the time, it is the case that those who are in work mostly go on to get further work. However, it is right that the Department is able to help. It is also right that we co-ordinate our work with other agencies. Indeed, part of the extra £6 million is intended to do exactly what my hon. Friend requests.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the threat of job losses at the Coalport and Faslane bases on the Clyde. Although I believe that such job losses are neither inevitable nor necessary, will he confirm that if they materialise, his Department will work at once with the Scotland Office, the Scottish Executive, the management and unions to form a lower Clyde jobs taskforce along similar lines to the successful upper Clyde taskforce that followed recent redundancies and threats of redundancies in the upper Clyde last year?

Nick Brown: First, let me sympathise with my hon. Friend. Representing a shipbuilding constituency myself, I know how difficult the threat of major redundancy rounds can be to communities that rely on a single large employer. I pledge that the Department will work with others to do what we can to help in the event of a redundancy round, although I understand that work is being done within the industry on the viability of the business, so we are not in that situation yet. The Department is in touch with others who have an interest in the event of a major redundancy round, including the agencies of the Scottish Parliament and of local government. If the help is needed, it will be there.

Annabelle Ewing: The Scottish National party shares the anxieties about the potential job losses at Faslane and Coalport. The Minister referred to significant redundancies. Presumably he accepts that redundancies on a numerically smaller scale may none the less have a greater marginal impact on small communities. Does he also accept that the real issue concerning jobs in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will not be solved until the Government start to address the underlying structural problems that face business in the UK, including their high-pound policy and the infliction of the highest fuel taxes in the industrialised world?

Nick Brown: May I say gently to the hon. Lady that more people are in employment in our country than ever before? If it is the policy of the Scottish National party to oppose defence expenditure, how does she hope to preserve defence jobs?

Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend share my deep regret at the recent closure of Scotland's only deep coal mine and the loss of 500 jobs? Will he join me in welcoming the rapid partnership that developed between the Employment Service, Scottish Enterprise Fife, Fife council, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Scottish Executive, the mining unions and many others to give those men every possible assistance in training and job opportunities? Does he agree that those miners have many skills and special qualities and that their needs should continue to be prioritised by the Government and the partnership in the weeks ahead?

Nick Brown: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), I understand how difficult these major redundancy rounds are. Shipbuilding and coal mining communities rely on a single, focused employment base, and when that is jeopardised the situation for the local community becomes very difficult. I can confirm that the Department's officials are working very closely with agencies of the Scottish Parliament and with Fife council to do everything that we can to help people who are displaced into other employment opportunities. We know that the opportunities are there, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the experience and skill base in the industry.

Dennis Skinner: I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) on Scottish mining jobs. Will the Minister take into account the fact that most large-scale redundancies come out of the blue, and the Government have to react to them?
	May I also tell my right hon. Friend that when colleges go into a review—this is not his Department, but he should listen carefully—it means that the Government may indirectly cause large-scale redundancies? There is one such college in my constituency, North Derbyshire tertiary college, and I hope that it is imprinted on the mind of every Minister. Instead of closing it down and causing large-scale redundancies, the Government should save it.

Nick Brown: I always listen particularly carefully when a matter being put to me is not my responsibility, in case I inadvertently give a commitment that I should not. The fairest thing that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I will draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Minister. He has made his point, and he is right to say what he does about redundancy rounds, whether they occur in education or in traditional heavy industry.

New Deal

Huw Irranca-Davies: What assessment his Department has made of the effect the new deal has had on youth unemployment.

Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the new deal for the young unemployed.

Nick Brown: Since 1997, youth unemployment has fallen by 43 per cent. and long-term youth unemployment has been reduced by more than three-quarters. The new deal for young people has played an important part in that, helping more than 350,000 young people off benefit and into jobs, and improving the work prospects of many more.
	We are building on the success of the new deal and are well advanced in making the improvements to the programme which we announced in last year's Green Paper, "Towards Full Employment". In the last three months, we have launched "progress2work" pathfinders, which provide help for unemployed drug misusers, and announced tailored pathway pilots to give personal advisers more flexibility to combine new deal options to suit the needs of the individual client. This month we are introducing StepUp pilots, which will provide transitional employment opportunities, and outreach initiatives to provide more effective support for people from ethnic minority communities.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The new deal programme and associated Government measures are undoubtedly turning round the despoliation of many years of Tory rule in Wales. However, will he expand on the new deal's effect on the local and national economy because, surely, great savings are made if youngsters are in work?

Nick Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and I welcome him to Question Time—we hope to see him here again.
	Every study on the new deal has confirmed that it adds substantially to the national economy. One way of looking at it is to consider that for every £5 that the Government spend, we get £3 back, either in social security expenditure that is no longer undertaken or in tax revenues.

Graham Brady: Why do Wildcat and other schemes in the United States achieve far higher success rates than the new deal for young people at a fraction of its £8,000 per job cost?

Nick Brown: The Conservative game has already been given away by the party's health spokesman. First, the Conservatives pretend that the Government's programmes are not working and that they can never work, and then they say that the provision should not be made at all or that it should be funded by insurance or by people's own resources. They then try to wrap that up—this is apparently the most difficult part—into a message that they can sell to the electorate. The electorate will say, "Under the Conservatives there were a third of a million young people out of work, and under Labour the figure is below 4,000."

Vernon Coaker: The new deal has been a tremendous success in tackling youth unemployment, and we should strongly congratulate the Government on that. In my constituency, many young people who previously languished on the dole are now in work. Many of the young people who are still unemployed have associated problems, such as physical disabilities, learning difficulties, drug abuse problems or, indeed, literacy and numeracy problems. In any development of the new deal, will my right hon. Friend ensure that advisers are supported with a package of measures to help such young people back into work?

Nick Brown: We have two new pilot schemes. One is to look at greater flexibility, and the other of course is the StepUp pilot. They are designed to help those who have been through the new deal but not found work so far. This is a radical programme, and there are 20 pilots. The Government are, effectively, purchasing the job for the individual for a year. We are absolutely determined that nobody is left out or bypassed by the schemes. Everyone who can work should have the right to work, and the Government should help them do so.

James Clappison: The Minister is not exactly being reckless in predicting that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will be in the House in future, but is he not being a little cavalier with the facts? Was not the National Audit Office right when it said that, to evaluate the new deal, it is necessary to take into account those who would have found jobs anyway? When that is done, did the NAO not find that the reduction in youth unemployment brought about by the new deal is not 350,000, as the Minister has just claimed, but 35,000, and that the cost per job under the new deal is far greater than the Government have maintained? In fact, is the new deal not one more example of this Government taking and spending a great deal of taxpayers' money and not making much difference in return?

Nick Brown: The hon. Gentleman rather confirms the accuracy of the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). We can see what the Conservatives are about. The hon. Gentleman selectively quoted the National Audit Office report. Neither that report nor any other has said that the new deal is not value for money. There will always be an element of dead weight cost in these schemes. One might just as well argue that teaching children to read has a dead weight cost because some of them would learn to read anyway. That is a ridiculous argument. We are talking not about a job-creation project but employment schemes. They are serving our country, and in particular disadvantaged people. They are serving them well and are value for money too.

Peter Pike: The Minister knows that Burnley will have one of the StepUp programme pilots. What steps will be taken in that significant programme, which will be important to those who have not been able to gain employment, to publicise, particularly in the local and regional press, exactly what is being done?

Nick Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for the close interest that he has taken in the pilot scheme. It will—I hope—have an important impact on his constituency. It is the Government's intention to publicise the programme. Indeed, we intend formally to launch the pilots in the next few weeks. I will make sure that proper publicity is given locally, and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of those who are managing the scheme locally. It is a very significant new scheme. For the first time, the Government are saying that we guarantee a job for a year to someone who has found the labour market intractable so far. I think that that should be welcomed.

Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment following the Minister's woeful failure to answer on the fact that schemes elsewhere in the world perform better?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has given notice.

Pension Funds

Julian Lewis: If he will make a statement on trends in the value and expected yield of pension funds since 1997.

Alistair Darling: The investment return achieved by pension funds between 1997 and 2001 has seen real returns of 6.8 per cent. The real rate of interest available from savings accounts over this period was 2.8 per cent. So, put simply, by investing in pension funds, people have had more than double the amount of return that they would have received from a conventional savings account.

Julian Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for that Alice-in-Wonderland answer. On the eve of the Chancellor's sixth Budget statement, should we not remember what he did in his first Budget, which was to mount a £5 billion a year raid on pension funds? Is it not as a result of that that firm after firm is abandoning final salary pension schemes, with the effect that a stealth tax whose effect was meant to dawn in people's realisation many years hence is becoming obvious now? It is obvious that people's pensions will be worth a fraction of what they would have been worth without the Labour Government raiding their pension funds.

Alistair Darling: First, the hon. Gentleman may not like my reply, but it was a reply to the question that he put. I can see why he might have shifted his ground in the light of my answer.
	As for his other remarks, the hon. Gentleman will recall that when, more than four years ago, we made changes to the corporate tax regime, we cut corporation tax as well. This country has the lowest ever rate of corporation tax, which has been of great help to companies' profitability and therefore to their shareholders, the vast majority of whom are pension funds.
	The hon. Gentleman knows well that the reasons for the trend to close down defined benefit pension funds are twofold. First, in the past couple of years, the value of the stock market has fallen dramatically, for reasons that we know. Secondly, as the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), said only today, people are living longer. In response to those changes, we will later this year publish proposals that we believe will help companies and individuals to save more for retirement. However, the overall changes that the Chancellor made four years ago have greatly enhanced the profitability of companies in this country and are therefore right for pension funds, which benefit from that increased profitability.

David Winnick: Despite my right hon. Friend placing responsibility as he has, is it not a matter of much concern that many employees are to be cheated of a decent pension as a result of employers closing down their final salary pension schemes? Why should employees—unlike Members of Parliament and others—be faced with inferior pension arrangements such as money purchase schemes, which will deprive them of a decent standard of living in retirement? I hope that the Government will take action.

Alistair Darling: As I have said on several occasions, later this year we will publish proposals that will, I believe, help both individuals and companies to contribute to pensions. It is worth bearing it in mind that in the past few years sales of pensions have increased by some 50 per cent.
	Lest the hon. Member for Havant forgets to mention it, let me point out that the latest figures on stakeholder pensions, which were designed to bridge some of the savings gap, show that 750,000 pensions have been sold. According to the Association of British Insurers, 97 per cent. were bought by or on behalf of individuals of working age. The idea that they were all being sold to grandchildren turns out, like so many other things the hon. Gentleman says, to be nonsense.

Steve Webb: The Secretary of State will be aware that, on average, employers contribute far more to final salary pension schemes for their employees than to money purchase schemes. He referred to proposals that he will bring forth later in the year. Is the goal of those proposals merely to slow the rate of decline of employer contributions to schemes, or does he think that they will cause those contributions to increase from their current level?

Alistair Darling: The objective must be to make sure that people save more for their retirement. The big problem facing us and Governments throughout the world is that, because people are living longer, we need to persuade them to save more for their retirement.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to a certain extent. The problem with the closure of final salary schemes is not necessarily that money purchase schemes are worse than final salary schemes; in fact, money purchase schemes can sometimes be better for people who move from job to job. The real problem is when the contribution made is reduced. As I said a few moments ago, the proposals that we will publish later this year are designed to make sure that more money goes into building up people's retirement pensions. That must be the central objective of Government policy.

James Purnell: Has the Secretary of State read the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, of which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) is a member, which welcomed the spending and principles underlying the State Pension Credit Bill and thought that the Bill would achieve its goals? What will my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the pension credit is taken up by as many pensioners as possible, which is central to making it work?

Alistair Darling: I read the Select Committee's report and am delighted that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has joined his predecessor in welcoming the pension credit as a much needed and overdue reform. We shall wait to see just how public he makes that support over the next few weeks.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) is right to draw attention to the fact that the pension credit will benefit more than half of pensioner households. It is important that we make sure that people get their entitlement. As people learn that the average gain will be about £400 per household, and as our proposed improvements to the system make sure that people get their entitlement, more and more money will go to the people who most need it. I strongly believe that the pension credit which, for the first time, rewards people's thrift and their efforts, is long overdue. We are determined to ensure that it works efficiently and effectively.

Peter Viggers: The Secretary of State cannot be allowed to duck the Government's responsibility. Is he aware that there is a direct link between the Chancellor's changes to advance corporation tax and the closure of final salary schemes? Is it not a fact that millions of people in their 30s and 40s will no longer be able to look forward to an independent retirement as the Government force more people on to means-tested benefits? Will the Secretary of State apologise to them, or is it the Government's strategy to force more people on to means-tested benefits?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is talking a load of nonsense. There never was a time, unfortunately, when everybody looked forward to retirement on a high pension through a funded pension system. We have introduced reforms to the pension system to make sure that the state system does more to help people on low incomes. By introducing stakeholder pensions, we are providing pension options that were never available in the past for some 5 million people. With regard to final salary schemes, as I have told the House on a number of occasions, not least a few moments ago, the Government will introduce proposals to help both individuals and companies save for retirement.
	I must make another point about the corporation tax changes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. If he was right about the ACT changes, one would expect all the closures to have taken place when the changes were made four years ago. What is driving the present spate of closures is, first, the stock market's dramatic fall in value and, secondly, the fact that the people running the schemes are beginning to realise that individuals are living longer, for which they have to budget. Thirdly, a lot of companies have been taking contribution holidays from their pension funds; those holidays are coming to an end, so they are closing some final salary schemes down. Some companies are not doing so; they are to be commended on taking a stand on their employees' interests. However, as I said, the Government will introduce proposals that will help individuals and companies to maintain and build their pensions for retirement.

Terry Rooney: Can the Secretary of State confirm that between 1988 and 1992 5 million people left occupational pension schemes following the disastrous reforms of the Social Security Act 1986? As a result, £11 billion of compensation had to be paid, which has had a serious effect on the balance sheet of life assurance companies?

Alistair Darling: Opposition Members tend to forget that what happened during the 1980s, one of the worst examples of the mis-selling of pensions, would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of people losing, in some cases, just about everything if they had not got the compensation for which we fought hard. When we look at pensions and put in place a pension system, it is important to ensure that people who ought to be in the state system are looked after and remain there. People who have privately funded pension provision should also be adequately protected. The Conservative party should remember that its policies in the 1980s had near-disastrous effects, not just for individuals, but for the pensions industry, for which it sometimes claims to speak.

David Willetts: May I thank the Secretary of State for the Department's letter to me about pensions headed, "Important information from the Department for Work and Pensions"? However, it is difficult to have confidence in its advice on pensions, when it was addressed to
	"Mr David Willetts, Member of Parliament, Labour Party, Regent Street, Barnsley, South Yorkshire."
	Perhaps it is not surprising that a Department that cannot correctly address a letter does not know how many assets we have in our pension funds or how much money we put into the funds as our contributions.
	During the previous Work and Pensions questions, the Secretary of State defended his hapless Department and its useless figures. Will he confirm that in a letter to me he has admitted that he does not know how much we are saving or how much our pensions are worth? When will he have an answer to those questions?

Alistair Darling: First, it is a tribute to the Post Office that it managed to find the hon. Gentleman despite the way in which his letter was addressed. The Post Office—or Royal Mail, Consignia or whatever it is called now—will be pleased to know about that.
	Secondly, the hon. Gentleman well knows that the statistics are prepared by the Office for National Statistics. The chief statistician has issued what I suppose for the ONS amounts to almost an apology for the fact that it has withdrawn a series of statistics. Apparently it will produce the statistics again. The Government do not produce the statistics, so I cannot accept responsibility for what Mr. Len Cook is up to.

David Willetts: It was the Secretary of State who quoted those statistics all the time when he was trying to argue that there was not a problem when it was obvious to everybody else that there was one.
	Let us try another simple, straightforward and factual question. What does the right hon. Gentleman estimate the impact on the value of pensions funds to be of the increase in the taxation of income from dividends in the 1997 Budget? The Department is responsible for pensions and it must have an estimate. What is it?

Alistair Darling: The value of pension funds depends to a large extent on the value of the stock exchange. As I explained to Conservative Members a few moments ago, the reason that some pension funds face a problem is that the value of the stock market has fallen for reasons that we are aware of over the past two to three years.
	When we consider pensions, as the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who first raised this line of questioning ought to know, we need to take a long-term view of stock market values. We cannot do what the hon. Member for Havant did in the Financial Times today, and take a snapshot of one year. That is certainly the way to mislead people.

David Willetts: So the Secretary of State does not know how much our pension funds are worth or how much we are contributing to our pension funds. He will not even give an estimate of the impact of a tax change that his Government introduced. No wonder the Government deny that there is a crisis in our funded pensions when they are taxing them more, regulating them more and spreading means-testing to penalise saving. Millions of people will have a poorer retirement as a result of the Government's policies.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in a number of respects. First, in relation to taxation, I shall take individual savings accounts, for example, which were roundly denounced by the Conservative party. It is worth bearing it in mind that that tax advantage savings vehicle has meant that 12 million people now have £60 billion of savings. That sum is far more than that invested in PEPs and TESSAs, which the Conservative Government introduced. More important, many of those saving in ISAs, for example, are on low incomes. They are precisely the people whom we should encourage.
	As for general taxation, the hon. Gentleman well knows that we reduced corporation tax, which the Conservatives could not do during all the years that they were in power. That has helped shareholders, and especially pension funds. The greatest single factor that will help pensions and pensioners is that, unlike the Conservative Government, we are running a strong and stable economy that will do more than many of the measures to which the hon. Gentleman refers to ensure that people can build up good pensions and retire with a good standard of living through a combination of both what the state does and what individuals do through their own effort. Above all, that effort will be rewarded through the pension credit, which the hon. Gentleman opposes.

Benefit Fraud

Bob Russell: What progress has been made in meeting his Department's targets on tackling benefit fraud.

Malcolm Wicks: We are making good progress in tackling benefit fraud, and we expect that progress to continue. Results show that by March 2001 we had reduced the level of fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance by 18 per cent.—nearly double our first milestone of 10 per cent. That was a year ahead of schedule. By 2004, we are committed to reducing fraud and error by 25 per cent., and to halving it by 2006.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. All fraud is to be deplored, but does he agree that it is important that the message goes out that genuine applicants should not be put off by whatever propaganda the Government are using, rightly, to attack fraud? Will he join me in supporting the Government message, and make it loud and clear that the majority of asylum seekers and refugees, when they are given an opportunity to work, are net contributors to the public purse and do not take from it?

Malcolm Wicks: I certainly agree that when, for reasons that we all understand, people are properly granted asylum, they become economically active and are an asset in all sorts of ways to our community and our economy.
	On the first point, it is vital that we present the message that people must claim the benefits to which they are entitled. Government have a role to play in that, as do local authorities. It is also vital that every pound that we spend on social security is spent properly and honestly. That is why publicising entitlement and waging the war against the fraudster go hand in hand and are largely dependent upon one another.

Bill Tynan: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that in spite of the successes in countering benefit fraud, it continues to be a major drain on the country's resources. Does he agree that one of the problems is the lack of co-operation between the various Government Departments in exchanging information that would ensure more convictions and less fraud?

Malcolm Wicks: We all agree that the more we can crack down on fraud, the more money we will have for social priorities such as care of the elderly, education and health. There is now a great deal of co-operation between Government Departments. That was a major problem in the past, but under, for example, the Social Security Fraud Act 2001 we can not only share data with other Government Departments but require data from banks and even utilities. It is vital that the fraudster cannot play off one Government agency against another, which is why we have taken the powers to collect the data to attack the fraudster.

Patrick Mercer: Between October 1999 and December 2001, there were 50,000 investigations of working families tax credit fraud, but only 28 prosecutions. Will the Minister undertake to look into the matter more carefully and demonstrate a new resolve to deal with fraud in relation to the working families tax credit next year?

Malcolm Wicks: Working families tax credit is, properly, the responsibility of the Treasury. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of its officials. We have responsibility for, among other things, the Benefits Agency. Between 1997 and 2000–01, the total number of prosecutions, cautions and penalties increased from 11,700 to almost 27,000. That demonstrates that we are tough on the fraudster and detecting fraud out of the system, and tough on the causes of fraud.

Pensions

Gareth Thomas: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of pension provision in the UK.

Alistair Darling: As I said a short while ago, people need to save more for their retirement. Our approach is based on a partnership between state and private provision, as both are essential. Since 1998 we have reformed the structure of pensions in this country to build and strengthen existing partnerships between the state, the pensions industry, individuals and employers.

Gareth Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that there is real concern that people are not making adequate provision for their retirement? Does he also accept that the Government have a crucial role in educating the public and encouraging them at an early stage to make adequate provision for retirement, given the fact that there is a decline in occupational pensions and that people are living longer in retirement?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. People need to be aware of the fact that as we can all reasonably expect to live longer we have to make provision to finance us at whatever standard of living we think we want in retirement. The introduction of annual pension statements will help to concentrate minds, but more needs to be done with pensions and other financial products. As I said on previous occasions, when we reach the stage when pension products and the way in which they are sold are heavily regulated, we may unintentionally impede access to the very products that we want people to buy. A number of measures are necessary—first, to make people aware of the need to save and, secondly, to make it easier for them to acquire the means to save.

George Osborne: Following the Government's heavy defeats on Friday on the Pensions Annuities (Amendment) Bill, will they now accept the Bill and give people the chance to have a decent income in retirement?

Alistair Darling: No, because the purpose of the Bill is to benefit a minority of people in this country who are better off and on higher incomes. I have made it clear time and again that although the Government are willing to consider ways in which the annuity market might be improved—indeed, we are consulting on them—we will not introduce a system that blatantly benefits a tiny minority at the top of the income scale at the expense of everybody else. That approach might be all right for the Conservatives, but it does not commend itself to us.

Jobcentres

Ross Cranston: What plans he has to make jobcentres more responsive to the needs of those who are out of work.

Alistair Darling: At the start of this month, we launched Jobcentre Plus, bringing help on jobs and benefits together under one roof with a very clear work focus. That will ensure that personal advisers are more responsive and can inform claimants of the full range of support available and the options open to help them move from welfare into work.

Ross Cranston: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for all the work that he and his Department have done to reduce unemployment in Dudley, which has fallen by about 25 per cent. since 1997. One of the problems in old manufacturing areas such as Dudley is unemployment among older men. Will he explain what the new institutional changes will do to address it?

Alistair Darling: My hon. and learned Friend raises a very important problem. At our previous Question Time, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed support for increasing the effort that we put into helping men over 50 to get into work. It is worth reflecting on the fact that a third of people over 50 but under retirement age are out of work, and that half of them depend on benefits for most of their income. That is clearly unsustainable in the long run, so one of the principal objectives of Jobcentre Plus and the rest of the Department is to ensure that we do more to help men over 50 to stay in work or get back into it if they lose their jobs. The rapid response service, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Work referred, will help in that regard. All the evidence suggests that if somebody can be helped as soon as they lose their job, it is better in the long term.
	Other measures such as the new deal and StepUp, which my right hon. Friend also mentioned, are designed to ensure that people who find it more difficult to get back into work get all the help to which they are entitled. Getting the over-50s into work is an essential part of our welfare to work policy and has a very strong bearing on pension policy, as the two are inextricably linked.

Archy Kirkwood: The Secretary of State is right to point out that the creation of Jobcentre Plus a fortnight ago is a welcome step forward, as it introduces the concept of personal advisers who offer advice and back-up when people are trying to get off benefit and into work. Does he accept that analysis of the ONE project, the precursor to Jobcentre Plus, indicated that the personal advisers' case load was such that they did not have enough time to give advice and spent most of their time processing benefit claims? Will he assure the House that when Jobcentre Plus is properly launched—I accept that it will take some time—there will be a proper balance between the efficient processing of benefits and the provision of adequate time to get people off benefits and into work?

Alistair Darling: A number of problems with the ONE project became obvious in the first year or so of its operation; the hon. Gentleman highlights one of them. The advantage of setting up a single agency that brings together benefit processing and job search is that, once and for all, we can get rid of the artificial distinction between people who sign on for work and those who sign on for benefits. That is especially important for some older people who are simply written off on disability benefits.
	Under the new system, when somebody goes into a Jobcentre Plus office, their benefit entitlement will be assessed by somebody whose sole job is to undertake that task. At the same time, they will be interviewed with a view to getting them back into work. The object should be to sort out their benefit as quickly as possible and then to talk to them about job search. That approach was tried out over the past couple of years, not only in the ONE project but in some of the mainstream jobcentre offices, especially on the Clyde coast. I know that the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the situation there. The approach is beginning to produce results. It is early days yet, but there is no doubt that bringing together benefits and job search is beginning to have results by not only putting people into work but ensuring that we pay the right benefit to the right person at the right rate—something that was conspicuously lacking in previous years.

Fiona Mactaggart: My concern is with younger unemployed people. How will the new Jobcentre Plus arrangements connect with the Connexions service to create a better gateway to work for young unemployed people?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right. I was talking about older people because whereas in the past youth unemployment was by far the biggest priority that the Government had to tackle, we now need to put the same vigour and enthusiasm into tackling unemployment among older people.
	We must ensure that we help young people who had difficulties at school, have fallen through the system and are not receiving the right level of help. That can be achieved through the Connexions service, and, when they are a bit older, the Jobcentre Plus network. All the evidence shows that the sooner young people can be placed in work, earning money and appreciating all the doors that that opens, the less risk there is of their falling back into unemployment or the other difficulties that they often unfortunately face.

Anne McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State realise that there is a problem of access, especially in a deeply rural constituency such as the Vale of York, where not a single jobcentre is to be found? Does he accept that there is a gulf between his Department's aspirations and its delivery on the ground?

Alistair Darling: We try our best to position jobcentre offices around the country. As I understand it, it is not Conservative party policy to spend millions of pounds more on setting up jobcentres—indeed, it is quite the opposite.

Anne McIntosh: I am asking you.

Alistair Darling: It is very good of the hon. Lady to do so. It may be some time before her party is again in a position to have a hand in these matters. She cannot say that we should spend less on the administration of my Department and that she wants more jobcentre offices. As we roll out the Jobcentre Plus network and make decisions about where the single offices are situated, we will make sure that there is an even spread and that transport communications are such that people can get access. If the hon. Lady supports me in ensuring that the Department is adequately resourced to do all that, I welcome her as a recruit to the cause.

Minimum Income Guarantee

Phil Sawford: How many pensioners in the Kettering constituency benefit from the minimum income guarantee.

Ian McCartney: As at November 2001, 3,100 pensioners in the Kettering constituency benefited from the minimum income guarantee. Those pensioners are at least £15 a week better off in real terms than in 1997. More than 2 million pensioners nationally benefit from the MIG. Additionally, this winter more than 19,600 older people in my hon. Friend's constituency received a winter fuel payment, benefiting each eligible household by £200.

Phil Sawford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and welcome the real help that the poorest pensioners in my constituency receive. However, the minimum income guarantee is a means-tested benefit, and most pensioners would prefer a significant increase in the basic state pension. Will my right hon. Friend find time to speak to the Chancellor about that before the Budget statement on Wednesday?

Ian McCartney: The Government have substantially increased the basic income of all pensioners. Initially, our greatest priority was to help the 2 million pensioners who did not benefit from minimum increases, whatever the rate, because for various reasons they were excluded from the basic state pension. We make no apology for being the first ever Government to find out who those 2 million people were and to ensure that they benefit from the minimum income guarantee. We have moved on to the second phase with the introduction of the pension credit; the passage of the State Pension Credit Bill resumes tomorrow. I should have hoped that the Liberals and the Conservatives would have a last-minute change of heart and support the Government in this, not oppose giving extra cash to millions of pensioners.

Tim Boswell: After those exchanges, I am not sure whether I should offer comfort to the Minister or to the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford). Unless the Kettering constituency is highly untypical—I rather doubt it, because it is next to mine and contains some of my former constituents—it, like mine, has 1,000 pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee but are not taking it up. Is not that wholly unsatisfactory? Will not the position get worse through the additional complexities of the pension credit scheme? Will the Minister consider whether it will be possible to reach out to pensioners who are entitled to the guarantee credit or the savings credit through a pension service that is to be located far away in another county?

Ian McCartney: If it was not for this Government, the pensioners in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) and that of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) would remain abandoned and not receive an extra £15 a week on average. In some instances, the poorest pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency receive an extra £20 a week. When we discuss the State Pension Credit Bill tomorrow, he will have a dilemma, which he may as well face now: will he oppose a measure that will put an extra £2 billion in the pockets of many pensioners, especially women and people who would never benefit under the Tories' previous pension proposals? He should give a straight answer: will he frustrate the opportunity for those people to receive the £2 billion?

Carers

David Kidney: What his Department is doing to improve work opportunities for carers.

Maria Eagle: Last April, we increased the earnings limit for invalid care allowance so that carers who combine some work with their caring responsibilities can keep more of their earnings. That was the first increase since 1993. The earnings limit for ICA will now be increased regularly in line with changes to the lower earnings limit.
	Carers are also benefiting from the introduction of our new Jobcentre Plus service. A personal adviser will help carers making new or repeat claims for benefit to look for employment or training that suits their circumstances, and provide support that is tailored to their needs.

David Kidney: I am grateful for those details. I shall host a conference in Stafford on Friday about care for the elderly. I anticipate that many carers will say that it should be a reasonable aspiration to balance caring responsibilities with work.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her comments on advisers and for saying that money for caring responsibilities will not be affected by earnings. However, there must be other support systems for those who are cared for, including out-of-school places for disabled children and daycare centres for elderly relatives. I appreciate that that extends beyond the Department for Work and Pensions, but will she bear it in mind that those matters need to be tackled as well as the steps that she has already outlined?

Maria Eagle: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. We want to encourage carers who wish to combine caring with some sort of work, and some 30,000 recipients of ICA already do so. We hope that the arrangements that we are making with Jobcentre Plus will enable carers who wish to do that to receive the appropriate assistance and help.
	On my hon. Friend's cross-government point, we must ensure as far as possible that we have joined-up services that mean something to people when they try to take up opportunities. There is no point in training people or assisting them to get to work if they cannot obtain the necessary support from social services to enable them to do that. I remind my hon. Friend that there are allowable expenses in ICA that enable those who wish to care to make alternative arrangements and pay for them without such payment being taken into account when their eligibility for ICA is considered. We do what we can about the benefits system, but my hon. Friend is right that we need to do more.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister look into a loophole that can affect carers who give up work to look after a member of the family who develops an illness or disability? If the disability assessment takes many weeks, carers can find themselves without both the income that they previously enjoyed and a benefit income. Local benefits offices are often not effective in helping those people to bridge the financial gap. Will the Minister consider that and encourage them to take a more enlightened view in such cases?

Maria Eagle: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. Clearly, there are eligibility criteria for ICA, and the person who is cared for must be in receipt of specific benefits to fulfil them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that we should take steps that would prevent us from ensuring that those who claim benefit are eligible. We need to protect against fraud and error. We must ensure that those who become entitled to benefits receive them as soon as possible. Our reorganisation of the Benefits Agency into a working age agency and the pension service should enable us to do that.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend accept that a large number of carers—such as Mrs. Greenwell of Bournmoor in my constituency—are of retirement age? Will she comment on the fact that Mrs. Greenwell and others lose their carers allowance when they reach retirement age? Thousands of people are caring for their loved ones without the additional help that they previously received, at a great saving to the Government.

Maria Eagle: I am aware of the problem that my hon. Friend raises. ICA cannot currently be paid at the same time as another income maintenance benefit. This is known as the overlapping benefit rule, and it has been a central part of the welfare state ever since it was established. I cannot promise to get rid of that rule, but my hon. Friend and his constituent may be interested to learn that a regulatory reform measure is making its stately way through the House that will—subject to the House's approval—extend the possibility of paying ICA to those over 65. This will particularly benefit women who do not have full national insurance contributions, and who do not, therefore, get a full retirement pension. The measure will not, however, abolish the overlapping benefit rule. I cannot give my hon. Friend any comfort on that.

Housing Benefit Fraud

Helen Jones: What progress has been made in tackling housing benefit fraud; and if he will make a statement.

Malcolm Wicks: Improving the overall performance of housing benefit administration is key to tackling housing benefit fraud, and many Members know that not all local authorities perform that task well at present. We have introduced new performance indicators to make an improvement possible.
	The benefit fraud inspectorate does very valuable work on fraud, and the great majority of local authorities—some 77 per cent.—have now signed up to our verification framework, which provides a rigorous check on people's claims. In these different ways, we think that we are winning the war against housing benefit fraud, and we estimate savings so far of some £100 million.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, and I acknowledge the work that has been done on this matter so far. Will he, however, undertake to discuss further with local authorities how we can ensure that people claiming housing benefit are actually living in the accommodation in which they claim to be living? I—and, I suspect, many other hon. Members—know of properties that are giro drops: addresses at which people register while living elsewhere. Those people are not only committing benefit fraud but depriving others of much-needed local authority accommodation. Will my hon. Friend look into this matter and see what can be done to improve the situation?

Malcolm Wicks: Among other things, the fact that we will not have girocheques redirected is one part of our armoury that I should draw to the attention of the House. It is also important that local authorities should make house visits, not only in suspected cases but more randomly to verify that people are living in the house that they claim to be living in.

Sydney Chapman: Is not the real test of the effectiveness of the Government's policies for dealing with housing benefit and social security fraud to be found in two simple facts? The first is that the level of fraud has significantly increased in the last four years; the second is that the number of prosecutions in 2001 was significantly less than in 1997. Is not all this exemplified by the fact that in one recent financial year, more than half of all local authorities did not bring even one prosecution for housing benefit or council tax fraud?

Eric Forth: Is it true?

Malcolm Wicks: I will answer the question in a formal way, rather than responding to heckling from the Opposition Front Bench. In terms of levels of housing benefit fraud in recent years, we simply do not know. It was this Government—not the last one—who initiated the first proper, ongoing research into this matter, and that will enable us to report to the House on levels of housing benefit fraud. I regret to say that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) is simply wrong about prosecutions following local authority investigations. My reply to the heckler is, therefore, that he is wrong, too—not, I think, for the first time. In 1997–98, there were 700 prosecutions following local authority investigations; in 2000–01, there were 1,100. That figure has increased under the Labour Government.

Pension Service

Mark Prisk: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new pension service in meeting the needs of pensioners.

Ian McCartney: It is very early days yet, but we are committed to making a real difference to the lives of pensioners. The pension service, which was formally launched on 1 April 2002, replaced Benefits Agency services for pensioners and will provide a better service that is tailored to pensioners' needs.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful for that short reply from the Minister. Does he agree that one welcome aim of the pension service is its stated intention to simplify the pension system, but does he share my concern that simply shortening the forms and reducing the number of questions will not achieve that aim? Does he not accept that changing the forms will simply constitute window dressing if he is not prepared to change the means-testing system itself?

Ian McCartney: I had another two pages to my answer, which I shall send to the hon. Gentleman.
	The pension service is the first attempt by any Government in history to establish a dedicated single unit that operates throughout the country, providing services not just for today's pensioners but for those approaching pensionable age. It is an advocacy service that not only provides day-to-day services and pensions and other advice, but seeks out pensioners in the community and works with them to increase their income and access to services. It is also working with older people to design a service to meet their needs.

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, quite properly, the Government delayed by one day the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill—by any measure, a very substantial Bill—precisely to allow the tabling of a reasoned amendment. Since then, in preparation for tomorrow's Committee proceedings, we in the official Opposition have worked on the assumption that the Bill's clauses will be dealt with in the normal sequence, and we had no reason to believe otherwise. To our shock, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt to yours, we found out on Friday that the Government have arbitrarily, and without consultation, changed tomorrow's order of consideration in Committee in such a way that no one could reasonably prepare the tabling of amendments to certain later clauses, consideration of which has now been brought forward.
	That affects not only the position of the official Opposition, but of legitimate outside interests, which have been similarly caught unawares by this apparently underhand move by the Government. Is there anything that you can do, Mr. Speaker, to protect the House and Members, particularly those who participate in Standing Committee, so that we can ensure that this sort of thing does not happen; otherwise, we will be left in the invidious position whereby no one will be able properly and legitimately to prepare amendments for Committee. I look to you for guidance and protection, because this is yet another typical example of the Government's cavalier attitude to the House and its Committees.

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the order of business, he will see that the Enterprise Bill Programming Sub-Committee meets at 7 o'clock this evening. That is an opportunity for the official Opposition—and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—to raise this matter, so my strong advice is that a good attendance is required.

Andrew MacKinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your help, guidance and clarification on business later today. Will you confirm and clarify my understanding that, at 7 o'clock—when we begin consideration of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill—the 10 o'clock motion, which cannot be debated, will be put? Is there any vehicle by which hon. Members who have consistently resisted that grubby little measure—born of a clandestine and wholly illegitimate grouping of the City of London corporation and Ministers—might ensure that it is rightly the subject of a free vote? Certain hon. Members are under the illusion that it is Government business, and that they might somehow gain preferment, but they will not.
	There is also a serious parliamentary point at issue. This is a private Bill and according to the traditions of the House, which you jealously safeguard, the vote, by definition, is a free vote, but the plot is that it is not. The nod and wink from those on the Treasury Bench is that Members should be present to provide parliamentary time through the night to see this squalid little measure through.
	I hope that, at 7 o'clock, we can have the opportunity, first, to prove that all that I have described is the case and to highlight that and, secondly, to persuade colleagues, particularly Labour Members who year after year in opposition derided the City of London, but are now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has put his case.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill (Programme)

Des Browne: I beg to move,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th July 2001:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

Subsequent stages

2. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	I expect the official Opposition to oppose the motion, as they do all programme motions, as a matter of principle. Due to the circumstances of the Bill, it is incumbent on me to give the House a brief explanation of why the Government think the motion appropriate. First, the business has been given this allocation of time because the Lords amendments will deliver changes called for by the Northern Ireland parties and the Opposition. Secondly, by my calculation, the whole debate in the other place—Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading—took two hours and 59 minutes, which is short of the time that we have given the House to consider the amendments this afternoon.

Andrew MacKinlay: I apologise for intervening, but will my hon. Friend, immediately or during the debate, clarify a point relating to the Bill and the matters that are the subject of the first group of amendments? I understand and have no difficulty with the fact that the Bill rightly requires greater evidence of who people are, their qualifications and where they reside than is the case for the rest of the United Kingdom, but there is a difference between that and having different criteria for who can vote.
	I want clarification. The amendments would require people to indicate where else they might be registered in the United Kingdom for electoral purposes, which is perfectly understandable and correct. That will not in any way alter the law, which I understand spans the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, whereby people such as the Minister and colleagues from Northern Ireland may be registered to vote in London borough elections. No doubt they are tempted to vote Labour on 2 May. How will the Bill affect those with dual residence and dual rights to vote in municipal elections—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are debating the programme motion. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask his question when we debate the Bill itself.

Des Browne: As you rightly point out, Mr. Speaker, the issue that my hon. Friend raises is germane to the amendments—indeed, it occupied our time in Committee more than once—and I am sure that it will be debated at length. If he catches your eye, he will be able to contribute on that relevant issue.
	I speak only to the programme motion, and I was making my second and last point. The whole debate in the other place accounted for less time than the Government are allowing for the consideration of these amendments in this House.

Quentin Davies: The Government do some extraordinary things, and they sometimes make colossal fools of themselves. I am afraid that they are making colossal fools of themselves by moving this timetable motion on these Lords amendments. If someone is to be made a fool of, it is important that it is the Government who make fools of themselves and do not succeed in making a fool of Parliament, because it is the Government's fault and not Parliament's. I want to dwell for a couple of minutes on the background to the motion.
	There are two reasons why it is extraordinary to introduce a programme motion on these amendments. First, there is no longer any controversy over the subjects dealt with in the Lords amendments between the Government and the Opposition, or between the Government and any hon. Member. As everyone knows, the Government belatedly, but nevertheless effectively, accepted the views put to them by every other party in the House—the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats, and every Northern Ireland party including the Social Democratic and Labour party. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady). In my experience in the House, on 99 occasions out of 100 the SDLP vote with the Labour party, in government or in opposition. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell us that it is 98.2 per cent. of the time, I am perfectly prepared to give way to him and have the facts corrected.
	It is most extraordinary to introduce a programme motion in those circumstances. The House will recall that it was in the Irish context that the system of programme motions was introduced in the 1880s, when the honourable predecessors of the hon. Member for South Down, the Irish parliamentary party under Parnell's brilliant leadership, succeeded in extracting important concessions from the Governments of the day, both Liberal and Conservative, by the use of aggressive filibustering. As Parliament virtually came to a halt at that time, for the first occasion in its then 600-year history some element of timetabling was introduced into its procedures.
	From that time forth, including when most of us arrived in the House, until the new Labour Government appeared in 1997, the programme motion was regarded as exceptional, undesirable and something that we would accept only reluctantly to meet the danger of an abuse by people filibustering and holding up business unreasonably. Anyone who came to the House with a programme motion had to make an exceptional case. The onus was always on the Government to make an exceptional case, and to make it clear that the circumstances were such as to justify what by consensus of the whole House—that was true in my first two Parliaments—was regarded as an inherently obnoxious and undesirable procedure.
	Part of the Government's devastating and obnoxious constitutional legacy will have been to introduce what has always been regarded in the House as an undesirable constraint on the freedom of Parliament and on its ability to do its essential job, which is to take its own time according to its own judgment to debate and consider the legislative proposals of the Government of the day. That tradition has been crudely set aside by the Government, who have benefited from their vast majority. They believe that they can do anything and get away with it.
	For a long time, programme motions were seen as an exceptional measure, but they have now become a regular procedure. The Government's use of such a motion this afternoon shows that there is no rhyme or reason to it. There may be one explanation, which I shall put to the Minister and he can tell me whether it is correct. I have searched my mind to discover what possible function a programme motion could have, given that the whole House is in agreement, as the Government have reluctantly accepted the substance of the Lords amendments.

Lady Hermon: May I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, although I think that we agree that the Lords amendments about national insurance numbers are most welcome, they have thrown up inconsistencies with the rest of the Bill? There is also a question mark over whether those amendments are compatible with our EU obligations, on which we might debate for a considerable period today.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Lady may have the basis of a speech, which she will deliver to the House when we get on to the substance of the Bill. This timetable motion, however, is being introduced when it is known in advance that there is no substantive disagreement between the Government and the other parties in the House. I understand that that goes for the hon. Lady's party as well, and that she has no intention whatever of voting against the Lords amendments; indeed, she has indicated from a sedentary position that my assumption is correct. In those circumstances, it is extraordinary to introduce a timetable motion. It makes no sense at all, because, far from confronting the threat or the slightest hint of a filibuster, the Government know that they are going to have a very easy afternoon.
	The only possible explanation that I can imagine for wanting to curtail debate in Parliament in such circumstances is that the Government are embarrassed that they have had to admit that their judgment is flawed and that they must finally concede that the judgment of the other parties in the House was correct. They feel humiliated by that—for a very arrogant Government, it is a humiliating situation—so they are anxious to restrict to a minimum the time available for Members of Parliament to comment on that and to rub salt in the Government's wounds. After thinking through any rational purpose for trying artificially to constrain and constrict parliamentary discussion of this matter this afternoon, that is the only hypothesis that I could form.
	If one sets aside the hypothesis of mere perversity or a mindless ideological belief that timetables should always be imposed on Parliament in principle, there is perhaps a desire on the part of the new Labour Government, with their vast majority, to show everybody that they are the master, and that the legislature can be kicked in whichever part of its anatomy the Government choose, at any time, and that it is a good idea to remind it of its subservience. Therefore, the Government will impose a timetable whether or not it makes sense. However, if one excludes explanations that do not have any logical or functional rationale attached to them, the only one that I can think of that makes logical sense is that the Government did not want us to have the opportunity to dwell on what is a turnaround—I shall not say U-turn, as that may seem gratuitously offensive—and an acceptance that the judgment of others was, on this occasion, superior to theirs.
	It is ironic that the Government should attempt to limit Parliament's time, even though their operating principle, throughout the range of our legislative activities, is to constrain Parliament artificially in this way. In this case, however, it is clear that, if a time discipline should be imposed on anyone, it should be imposed on the Government. I remind the Under-Secretary that it is four years and a month since the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs made its recommendations in relation to electoral fraud, which, more or less, have been encapsulated in the Lords amendments. If anybody, therefore, needs to have a timetable motion imposed on them, the Government do. Were you to give us leave to table an exceptional motion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we should impose a timetable motion on the Government to make sure that they deal with Select Committee reports in a more business-like and timely fashion in future than they have done on this occasion. We might therefore speed up the Government's bureaucratic procedures, focus their minds, and impose on them some of the constraints that they are trying to impose on the legislature. They are abusing the vast majority that the new Labour party has—temporarily, I hope—in the House. Timetabling is the last thing that the Government should be talking about in Parliament. The dialogue should be going in the other direction.
	I do not want to end my remarks without acknowledging positively—the Minister knows that I always try to see the best in everything, including the best in even the new Labour Government—that the Government's change of heart is very welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was assiduous in Committee and I heard him arguing eloquently. Every other party represented on the Committee also made the arguments that are now represented in the Lord's amendments before us. The Government would not listen in Committee, because they were in their arrogant mood and thought, "We have a vast majority and we don't care what you think. We'll do what we like. Get lost." That sums up the attitude of the Government, and not just in the Northern Ireland Office but right across the board.
	I am glad to say that wiser counsels have now prevailed. After the issue has been discussed at great length in this House and in the other place, the Government have come forward with extremely important proposals. Electoral fraud has been a major problem in Northern Ireland for a long time and it is wrong to suggest that only the Unionist parties suffer from it. The SDLP has suffered just as much, if not more, from electoral fraud. All the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland suffer. By definition, they have scruples and are genuinely committed to the democratic process. They are not prepared to go in for cheating or for electoral fraud. Therefore, they can easily suffer in an environment and a culture in which extremist parties do not have the same inhibitions.
	We have discussed the problem and particularly the use of national insurance numbers. Like all brilliant ideas, their use seems obvious in retrospect, but it has been agonising trying to persuade the Government that national insurance numbers should be used in Northern Ireland. The Government have now accepted one of our ideas—and not quite for the first time. I draw attention to the fact that, before Easter, the Government made a small gesture in amending provisions of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill in relation to the display of the royal coat of arms on the outside of courthouses. I acknowledge and appreciate that gesture.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is straying into consideration of another Bill. We are debating the programme motion.

Quentin Davies: You are absolutely right to remind me of that, Mr. Speaker. I was glad to be able to touch on the other concession that the Government have made, but I recognise that it is not strictly germane to the timetable motion.
	Although the Government have taken a long time and although they—and not the legislature—should have been subject to a timetable or guillotine motion, it is clear from the Lords amendments that the opposition of my hon. Friends and the Northern Ireland parties—the SDLP and the two Unionist parties—has proven to be correct. Indeed, we have received support—we much appreciate it—from the Liberal Democrats, so there has been complete unanimity. We have been right, and the Government have been wrong. I do not want to be churlish because, on an occasion that is all too rare, we must acknowledge that the Government have made a magnanimous gesture.
	It is a pity that this entirely gratuitous, unnecessary and unjustified timetable motion should destroy the good will that the Government might otherwise have created. It is not justified by anything that the Minister said or by anything else that anyone can conceive of.

Andrew MacKinlay: From time to time, we need to interrupt the cosy consensus between those on the two Front Benches. The real truth behind the timetable motion is the nonsense of parliamentary choreography, which means that Government Back Benchers will be here dead on the button at 7 o'clock, so that they can deal with a matter that was the subject of a point of order earlier. That is the real truth. The hon. Gentleman knows it; the Minister knows it; and, more important, so do the Whips.
	When people read our proceedings and the hon. Gentleman's remarks, they probably think that they are very interesting. The truth is that proceedings have been choreographed so that we arrive at the next business at 7 o'clock, when the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill will be discussed. That is the reason for this charade. The hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that.

Quentin Davies: I agree profoundly with the hon. Gentleman this afternoon, and I have done so for many years; we have stood on the same side of the barrier on the importance of Parliament and the danger of over-mighty and arrogant Governments taking Parliament for granted or abusing their majority to change the procedures of the House so as to make the legislature less effective. When that happens, they do a very bad day's work not merely for democracy and open government, but for good and effective legislation.
	The hon. Gentleman and I sing from the same hymn sheet on that subject—we have done so in the past and we will do so again—but it is pretty extraordinary that he should characterise my remarks on the Government, which the Minister did not think particularly friendly, as exemplifying a consensus between myself and the Government on this matter. I am conscious that I am speaking from the Front Bench and that colleagues on the Front Bench will listen to this part of my remarks with particular attention, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the official Opposition wanted a timetable motion on the Lords amendments or that we have colluded on this or any other occasion to impose on Parliament such a timetable motion.
	I do not pretend to have a better understanding of parliamentary procedure than the hon. Gentleman—he is a well known and distinguished parliamentarian—but, frankly, I do not believe that even his technical, practical explanation holds water. In no way is it helpful to keep hon. Members here until 7 o'clock, supposing that it had occurred to anyone on either side of the House who thought it desirable to keep hon. Members here until 7 o'clock that introducing a timetable motion would help to do so. I can think of other things that might help in that way, but not a timetable motion on the Lords amendments to the Bill. For once, the hon. Gentleman has been carried away into a conspiracy theory and proceeded to build castles literally in the air—there is not a grain of sand on which that allegation can possibly be built. I hope that he will accept that assurance.
	No doubt, my party and I will be accused of many things, but no one who looks at the constitutional record of the two latest Parliaments can ever maintain for one second the allegation that we have been complacent in this abuse of our parliamentary procedure, which is exemplified by this Government in introducing timetable motions even when they are self-evidently utterly unnecessary in the exigencies of getting Government business through the House.

Eddie McGrady: I rise not to filibuster, as may have been the intent of the Conservative spokesman; in fact, the record will show that filibustering is not an attribute of my party. The links between the Irish parliamentary party and my own party are very tenuous indeed—perhaps nationality is the only common element. However, I have expressed great frustration in the House on the timetabling of Bills, especially in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 and the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill, which we found extremely frustrating.
	As the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has said, it is anticipated that all parties in the House will agree with the Lords amendments, probably without Division. That is the only substantive issue and we were to debate it for four hours, which would have been adequate, especially when compared with the fact that 212 clauses and amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill were debated in four hours not so long ago. The hon. Gentleman gave a good illustration of a mini-filibuster to protract this debate, which I do not intend to do; we have already used up half an hour of the time that he deemed so precious.

Lembit �pik: Judging by the comments of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), it seems that we have consensus on the measure. Although I do not want to put words into the hon. Gentleman's mouth, it seems obvious that he does not believe that we need to debate the Bill until 7 pm. As I understand it, that is why he feels affronted: he feels that there is no need for a provision to curtail the debate at 7 pm because it will be finished before then.
	I have often felt uncomfortable about programme motions because they have curtailed debate, although on one occasion I supported a programme motion that was opposed by the Conservatives and I was wrong to do so. As I said in private and on the record, the Ministers in charge of the Bill on that occasion took so long to respond to the points made that we ran out of time, and that has made me wary of supporting programme motions.
	Nevertheless, when we consider those two factsthat we oppose programme motions when they curtail debate and that everyone seems to accept that we shall be finished long before 7 pmit seems reasonable to accept the programme motion. I understand that there may be a point of principle for the Conservatives, but being a principle it is not open to debate.
	The question about choreography is interesting. I am sure that Ministers would not be so disrespectful to Members as to waste our time and that of othersincluding Officersby stringing out a debate that has no need to continue until 7 pm just for the convenience of the Government. We shall see what happenshistory will be the judge.

Mark Francois: If there were some cosy consensus between the Front Benches, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) would, on past form, be exactly the man to raise it. However, I do not believe that there is such a consensus. When we debated the Justice (Northern Ireland) BillI choose my words carefully, Mr. Speaker, so as to remain in orderthere was a great deal of argument and rowing about its programming. The Opposition made robust points at that time so, from our perspective, there is a pattern and it is entirely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) should reiterate those concerns.

Lembit �pik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that insight. I, too, am sceptical that there is consensus between the Conservatives and the Government deliberately to string the debate out until 7 pm. I take the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford at his word so I address my comments to the Minister: we do not really need to debate until 7 pm two groups of amendments with which every one agrees, but we shall have to see what happens.
	I am, however, aware that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will want to raise issues about the amendments but I suspect that even she will not need three hours in which to do sotime will tell. I accept that there are inconsistencies and shall be interested to hear her arguments on them. The amendments were controversial only when the Government opposed them. As the Government now agree with them, most of that controversy has gone.
	I respectfully point out that the motion could have been avoided had the Government been more flexible on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. The only result of the Government's pointless intransigence in the face of cross-party supportfrom the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Conservatives, the Democratic Unionists, the Ulster Unionists and the Liberal Democratsis the embarrassing fact that there are ministerial speeches on the record pointing out that the very proposals that the Government have now accepted are a bad idea.
	Such contradictions could be avoided if Ministers genuinely showed flexibility when such proposals are made. I do not condemn the UnderSecretary of State for Northern IrelandI have much respect for him and we are, after all, about to discuss the amendmentsbut it is a waste of parliamentary time to be considering Lords amendments that were previously tabled by Members in this place and could thus have been included in the Bill before it was debated by the Lords.
	If I may humbly suggest improvements to the Minister, perhaps in future he might be willing genuinely to embrace the mantra of flexibility and of being a listening Government. If he had done so, instead of debating a programme motion at this stage of the Bill's passage, we would not actually be debating the matter at all.

John Gummer: I realise that the choreography of the Liberal Democrats makes it impossible for me to convince them to change their view. However, I want to explain that for many of us the timetable motion is a matter of the most severe principle because the ability to trust Parliament is threatened by the Government's insistence that we have such motions at every drop of the hat.
	There is no reason to have a timetable motion today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, we must ask why it is necessary to have one at all. With all due respect, however, he missed the fundamental reason for it: unless the Government introduce a timetable motion when it is not necessary, it makes it harder for them to introduce one when it is necessaryfor the Government's purposes rather than those of Parliament. To get out of the embarrassing situation in which timetable motions are proposed in order to stifle debate, the Government need to make them a regular necessity. If they always happen, the Government do not have to answer that deeply disturbing question about the use of such motions as a mechanism for preventing embarrassing subjects from being raised.
	You, Mr. Speaker, have been extremely forthright in allowing debate when the Government have not been forthcoming about providing the time. For example, tomorrow we are to debate something that the Government would have preferred not to discuss. That is part of the problem that we face. The Speaker is in the special position of defending Back Benchers and, indeed, Labour Members when the purposes of Parliament are subverted by a Government who are much more interested in getting their way than in providing the proper forum for democracy.
	Although I often disagree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), it is much more common for me to agree in principle and spirit on the nature of Parliament. The Minister is a man of principle. He has tried hard to help those who have difficulties with the Bill so that we have legislation that is acceptable to both sides of the House. However, he does himself no good by going along with the fundamental plot devised by Government Whips. The plot has not been choreographed by the two sides: it is entirely a minuet by Government Whips.
	The line is simple: unless we dance this same dance when it is unnecessary, people will ask why we dance it at all when it is necessary. The answer is that we do that in normal circumstances because the purpose of the timetable motion is to avoid difficult questions and awkward speeches, not just by the Opposition but increasingly by Labour Members.
	It is crucial for us to oppose this timetable motion above all others. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) should realise that this is an issue par excellence on which the Liberal Democrats, given their history, can express their concerns. It is precisely because the motion does not matter that this is the time to say that the principle is wrong, and it is wrong because it is designed by the Executive to control Parliament in an unacceptable way.
	I have the same difficulty as the hon. Member for Thurrock. If our constituents were to peruse the report of the debate, they would wonder what the blazes we are talking about. Why do we have to discuss for 45 minutes something that should not be discussed? Without this debate, we could raise the relevant issues and conclude our public business by 6 o'clock. The motion has nothing to do with today's business. It is to do with a mechanism increasingly used by a Blairite Government who seek to control us lest we say something out of line.
	Few members of the governing party are presentif I exclude Front-Bench Members and the PPS, there are three Members on the other side of the House who are recognised for their individuality, and no one else. If more Labour Members were here, I would remind them that the motion is designed not to keep us under control, but to control them. That is true not only on this occasion, but on others too. The motion is designed to ensure that there are not too many Members talking about the idea that we should bomb Saddam Hussein or whether invading Palestine is a useful way of dealing with terrorism. The motion is not to do with the issues to be discussed today.

Lembit �pik: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point of principle. I shall consult my Front-Bench colleagues; should a vote be called, we may be influenced by his argument.

John Gummer: I am much flattered by the hon. Gentleman. I shall therefore bring my remarks to a close, because my purpose, it seems, has been to some degree achieved.
	I would like to remind the House that at moments like this, when there are not many Members and very few of the Government's supporters in the Chamber, we need to be most careful and precise about our procedures. I hope that the House will recognise that there is a daily, weekly and monthly need to stand up for the rights of the House, if we are not to fail to defend our constituents on the issues that really matter. My experience of the House over many years is that if one does not stand up on the issues that apparently do not matter, when it comes to those that do, one is in no position to fight. The hon. Gentleman ought to be on our side, given his history, rather than opposing us.

Des Browne: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall respond to the debate. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) saw through the flimsiness of the argument of his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), when he said that he had used the wrong argument. Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal, in a very articulate and informed way, also got the wrong end of the stick.
	The position of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) on timetabling continues to confuse me. I have been present when he has talked about recorded debates. I have also been present when he has manfully argued for the discipline of timetabling and treated us to some of his experience in business, telling us how important the discipline of timetables has been in that experience. I know that there are hon. Members present who have heard those arguments. The hon. Gentleman castigates me explicitly and by implication for listening and responding to argument. However, that is exactly what he does with his protean utterances on timetabling.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because he and I have both occasionally had the support of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and his Liberal Democrat colleagues on Northern Ireland issues. Will the Minister inform the House whether he has more confidence in his arguments when he has the support of the Liberal Democrats?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman invites me to come down on one side or the other. As I have a long-term relationship with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, that might place me in an uncomfortable position. I try to recognise when the hon. Gentleman is right and on those occasions I am pleased to have his support. When I think that he is wrong I am pleased to engage in debate with him.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford says that we do not need a timetabling motion because there is no issue of controversy. However, the House has not had an opportunity to consider the provisions that were passed in the other place and are before the House today in the sort of detail that will allow the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), for example, as well as, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Front Bench, to ask the detailed questions that they are entitled to ask in relation to those provisions.
	The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there is a timetable motion because I, the Minister who has been responsible for the Bill, seek to curtail debate that will expose the fact that there has been a change of Government policy. He will see from my contribution to the debate, when we come to the substance of it, that I take that issue head on. There has been a change of policy, and I recognise and accept that. I say to him and others that there is no point in debate in this House if one cannot persuade Ministers at some stage to change policy. As I have been prepared to change policy, hon. Members are entitled to point that out to meand I am sure that it will be pointed out. However, if he does not think that three or four hours is enough time in which to do so, I despair of his ability to make such a point. There are only so many ways in which he can say U-turn, even if he does not want to use that phrase.
	In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) suggested that some form of choreography between the Front-Bench teams has led to the timetable motion, on which he was assured by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford. If my hon. Friend's reaction was anything to go by, he accepted the hon. Gentleman's assurance that there was no such choreography. So that conspiracy theory was blown out of the water; there was nobody for the Government to conspire with. There can be no conspiracyunless people are whispering to themselvesalthough that does not of course stop a Conservative Front Bencher suggesting that that is exactly what the Government are doing.
	In having to be consistent with the position that the Conservative Front-Bench team is attempting to take, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal suggested that there is a conspiracy on only one Front Bench, and that that has led to the timetable motion. That is no explanation for the motion either. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a good argument. It was not a convincing argument, but it was a good one.
	The reality is that the timetable motion is a practical attempt to set aside a sufficient amount of time in the House to debate provisions which, albeit accepted in principle by all parties, require some scrutiny and debate. I am sure that questions will be raised that need to be answered.

Quentin Davies: rose

Des Browne: Perhaps one such question is arising now.

Quentin Davies: The hon. Gentleman seems to be in a state of some confusion. He is saying that, notwithstanding the broad agreement in principle on the Lords amendments, providing opportunities to discuss some of the detail might be necessary. That is a weird basis on which to argue for curtailing discussion. He is concerned that Parliament needs more time to consider the matters, so the last thing the Government should be doing is artificially limiting that time.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am suggesting that the motion is a practical attempt to set a reasonable period of time in which to discuss mattersinformed by debate not only on Second Reading but in Committee and during remaining stages, and in the other place.
	Although I restricted my opening remarks to a few sentences, I pointed out that the whole debate in the other place took less time than we are proposing to allow in this House to debate the provisions before us. Given the agreement in principle on them, there ought to be sufficient time to consider the issues. I suggest that the timetable motion allows sufficient time to do so.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has disavowed the generous interpretation of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, who was not arguing that debate was being curtailed unnecessarily. It appeared to me that he said that there would not be enough time. Time will tell whether that is so.

Lembit �pik: With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), I was not convinced by his arguments. I was interested in the deeper principle outlined by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). In that sense, there is a concern that the habit of always having a programme motion when it does not count makes it harder for us to defend the need for more time when such a motion does count.

Des Browne: I am grateful for that observation. I understood the hon. Gentleman's position to be that he was agreeable to programming in principle. He has said that on several occasions, but now it appears that he agrees with programming generally, but not in principlewhatever the difference between generally and in principle may be. Is it that he is generally agreeable in principle to programming? I am not sure.
	Until now, my understanding was that the hon. Gentleman, who speaks regularly for the Liberal Democrats when I am at the Dispatch Box, was agreeable in principle to programming. We have to try to convert the principle to which he is agreeable into some form of practical expression. The motion before us is designed to do that in a way that provides sufficient time to debate the provisions that are before the House today. That is the argument, and it is on that basis that I support the motion and ask the House to do so as well.

Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 162.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th July 2001:

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Seven o'clock on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

Subsequent stages

2. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1
	  
	Registration: Provision of signature and date of birth

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Des Browne: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 6, 9, 11 and 13 to 16.

Des Browne: During the Bill's passage through both Houses, all the Northern Ireland parties, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats pressed hard for the inclusion of national insurance numbers as one of the items of personal information required, alongside the signature and date of birth of each individual, on electoral registration for the purposes of cross-checking and verifying identity.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister would not want to omit from the list of those seeking the inclusion of national insurance numbers the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, whose report of 11 March 1998 led to the Billa Committee of which, of course, the Minister was a part in calling for the inclusion of national insurance numbers.

Des Browne: That will teach me to pause for breath. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the contribution that I made to the provisions before the House. He will recollect that in my opening remarks I was referring to the Bill's passage through both Houses, and he will realise why that august body, the Select Committee, was not included in the list in my opening paragraph.
	Throughout the Bill's passage through this House I repeatedly explained the difficulties involved in using national insurance numbers for electoral purposes and resisted the amendments tabled by hon. Members. However, as I said on Second Reading, this is not a great issue of principle. I had at the time made a judgment based on the information available to me that the Bill as originally drafted was sufficient to tackle the problem of electoral fraud, and that it struck a workable balance between preventing fraud and not placing unnecessary obstacles in the way of honest voters.
	I have sought to maintain that balance throughout the debates on all the provisions of the Bill. For hon. Members who were not members of the Committee, I say, and I am sure that I will be supported by those who were, that throughout the debates I have tried to listen to any reasonable, practical suggestions in relation to the Bill which were consistent with that balance. Those who know the history of the Bill will be aware that national insurance numbers are not the only issue on which I have agreed that alternative suggestions would benefit the legislation. The proposal is not alone in that regard.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister's giving way so early in the debate, although as he appears to be in such sparkling good form I am sure that he is delighted to be intervened on. I remind him that on 5 December 2001, at column 320 of the Official Report, in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), who is not now present, although he was here earlier

Hugo Swire: I am here.

Lady Hermon: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. That will teach me to hold my breath while I look around the Chamber.
	In reply to a question asked by the hon. GentlemanI am absolutely delighted to see him in his placethe Minister said that he was opposed to proposals on national insurance numbers because he
	considered that they were disproportionate, that they made unreasonable demands on voters, and that they were opposed by the chief electoral officer.[Official Report, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 320.]
	We know that he now supports the inclusion of national insurance numbers, but will he explain why and how the chief electoral officer has changed his view and no longer opposes their inclusion?

Des Browne: It would be fairer to allow the chief electoral officer to speak for himself on this issue, just as I am speaking for myself in dealing head on with those observations

Quentin Davies: He has done it before.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman suggests that I have quoted the chief electoral officer before, but let me explain the position. I am sure that hon. Members will point in the Official Report to the position that I took earlier, which is there for all to see. I took what I thought to be a reasoned position on the basis of particular problems that I identified in earlier debates; the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) quoted my remarks on some of them. I identified some issues as genuine problems that needed to be overcome, but I made it clear to hon. Members that I would listen to and consider what they had to say.
	Of course, I was conscious that all the Northern Ireland political parties, including that which the hon. Member for North Down represents, as well as the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats and also the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, were as one on the issue in the previous Parliament. As I was mindful of that pressure, it would have been remiss of meand inconsistent with the approach that I had adopted throughout the Bill's passageif I had not put the option to a further test to see whether I could find a way in which national insurance numbers could be used for electoral purposes that would not be disproportionate or disadvantage legitimate voters. That is the test that I set myself for all the provisions.
	At this stage, it is important to address a point made earlier about the time that it has taken for the current provisions to come before this House and for the legislation to be brought before Parliament.
	Discussion has been going on for decades about addressing electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. Indeed, many provisions have been introduced on voting in Northern Ireland in that time. If one were to hear only this afternoon's debates on the matter, one might think that the issue had arisen only when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, but nothing could be further from the truth. For decades, successive Governments have sought to address the issue either by introducing arrangements brought before the House or through other measures that do not require legislation. The fact that one of the first things that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee did after the 1997 general election was to reconsider the issue, urged on by Members who represented Northern Ireland constituencies, is a measure of the success that previous Governments have had in interdicting such behaviour.
	This has been an intractable problem, but I am happy to say that when the Bill left the other place, official Opposition spokesmen and others suggested that it is the best possible attempt to address the issues that have bedevilled Northern Ireland's electoral affairs for decades. The problem has concentrated the minds of politicians in Opposition and in government for a long time, and it does not lend itself to the quick fix. The Government and Opposition parties are indebted to the Select Committee's work on electoral fraud. We are also indebted to other committees and to hon. Members who are present for the contributions that they have made to the debate. I am sure that that debate will continue.
	All Governments face particular constraints in dealing with electoral matters with the widest possible consultation and the greatest possible care, and that is especially true of a Government with the sort of majority that we enjoy. We should deal with such matters only in a way that secures the greatest possible support among the parts of the electorate that they will affect. I make no apology for the fact that we took a long time in formulating these restrictions, because it was right to consider them with the greatest of care and subject them to the widest possible consultation. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is nodding, so I take it that he agrees. The Bill has the degree of support that I am sure that it will enjoy this afternoon only because such care was taken to proceed at a pace that did not offend that principle, which informed everything that I have done as the Minister responsible.

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) was nodding to applaud the dexterity of the Minister's arguments, not necessarily their validity. If the Government had not taken such an inordinately long time over the proposals, we would now have legislation that would enable an identity card scheme to be up and running in time for the Assembly elections. On the basis of the information that we have received, it will take 18 months from the passing of the Bill for such a scheme to be put in place. As there is considerably less time than that between now and the Assembly elections, the dilatory manner in which the provisions were dealt with means that that opportunity has been missed.

Des Browne: I normally enjoy the hon. Gentleman's interventions because they take the debate forward, but they do so only if he is properly informed. I do not know where he got 18 months from; perhaps he made it up while he was on his feet. I have a timetable

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Des Browne: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall first deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Reigate. The estimate to which he referred may have been applicable at one time, but I am satisfied that there is now a timetable for the introduction of identity cards that can meet the deadline that the Government have set themselvesassuming that that change has the acceptance of the Northern Ireland electorate as expressed in consultation with the parties, among others.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I just want to point out that the figure of 18 months came from the House of Commons Library research paper on the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, which clearly states in reference to the introduction of identity cards:
	It was envisaged that the issuing programme would take up to eighteen months to complete.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I might have an opportunity at some stage, when I am not on my feet addressing the House, to have a look at that paper and to check that the full context of that quotation refers to 18 months from the date that the hon. Member for Reigate said was the starting date, rather than from another date. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance, as the Minister responsible, that I have been privy to a timetable for the introduction that can meet the date for the Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman will accept that, perhaps we can move on.
	It was particularly important, when seeking to make the changes to the Bill, to determine how we would deal with those individuals who do not have a national insurance number, and how the electoral office would check the authenticity of the national insurance numbers that it received for registration purposes. Allowing for the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral processas the amendments doI have placed a high priority on identifying a solution that avoids the placing of a heavy burden on the electorate or on the Department for Work and Pensions, and that avoids difficult data protection issues.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the Minister giving way. Although he is unable to explain why the opposition of the chief electoral officer has now been removed, will he confirm, as the inclusion of national insurance numberswhich we welcomewill place a huge administrative burden on the electoral office, that there is no opposition within that office to the use of these numbers?

Des Browne: I can speak on the basis of my contacts with the chief electoral officer, who represents the office in its dealings with me as the Minister, and I can assure the hon. Lady that he supports this change. I did not specifically ask him why that should be his position, but I am sure that his position will be the same as mine, in that I identified difficulties, which I am seeking to address in this speech, of which he was aware, and which I now believe can be overcome. The overcoming of those difficulties was not easy, but now that we have done so, I am sure that the chief electoral officerand his staff, who support him faithfully as alwayswill do everything in his power to deliver and operate the policy in this legislation.

David Wilshire: May I ask the Minister to rack his brains? He has just said that the chief electoral officer told him that he was now happy with the proposals. I assume that he would have said something like, I am now content because . . . . Will the Minister think back and try to remember what the chief electoral officer's reasons were for saying that he was now happy with the measure?

Des Browne: I will say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the hon. Member for North Down, who asked me the same question. For many of the reasons that I put before the Standing Committee, the chief electoral officerwhose advice I value on these matters, as he is the person who has practically to operate the measureswas of the same view as I was when the Bill was previously before the House. Having listened to the arguments put forward by hon. Members, however, and having recognised the breadth of support for the introduction of national insurance numbers as an identity check, I undertook to go away and look again at whether that policy could be delivered in a practical way that did not offend the principles that I had set out. I am now satisfied, for reasons that I am seeking to articulate in this speech, that it can be introduced in a fashionthat set out in the amendments passed in the other placewhich does not offend those principles.
	I am not in a position, following my conversations with the chief electoral officer, to give the hon. Gentleman what he seeks. I can say, however, that during that dynamic process, I am sure that the chief electoral officerwho was party to what was going on in the sense that he was aware of what I was seeking to do, and who was in close contact and discussion with my officialswould have been satisfied for the same reasons that I am satisfied that this can be done without causing the offence that I seek to avoid.

Andrew MacKinlay: What happens if there is a dispute about a national insurance number? I fully support the thrust of the amendments, but I want to be satisfied that, where a dispute arises about ownership of a national insurance number, the applicant for inclusion on the franchise can fast track, or can satisfy the chief electoral officer. Perhaps the Minister saw Saturday's edition of The Daily Telegraph, which ran an article on Andrew Palmer, a constituent of mine whose national insurance number is also being used by somebody in one of Her Majesty's prisons. If I catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I might elaborate on the matter, but it is clear that the national insurance number system is not foolproof, as witnessed by the irritating problems experienced by my constituent. If he lived in Northern Ireland and wanted to vote, he might experience problems in relation to his identity.

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes a timely intervention. Through the experience of one his constituents, he identifies a problem with national insurance numbers that I, too, identified, and which caused me to have second thoughts and to oppose at the outset their use as identifiers in electoral law. However, I am now satisfiedthis debate will show whether my appreciation is correctthat all parties in the House understand that the system can be made to work, that it can accommodate possible flaws in the national insurance number system, and that checks can be used to ensure that people are not disadvantaged and denied their vote. That is why the provisions before the House are so detailed and complex; indeed, they are considerably more complex than any amendment that I resisted in Committee, or than any proposal put forward on Second Reading or during the Bill's remaining stages.
	The complexity of the provisionsparticularly that relating to the chief electoral officer's power to check with the Department for Work and Pensions that, in a given circumstance, the national insurance number used is the one that ought to be attributed to the person in questionis designed for the very circumstances that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) identifies, among others. His constituent's experienceI cannot comment on it because it is not part of my ministerial responsibility, but I understand that the matter is in handis another good example of why it is important to proceed with some caution. When we think that we have found a simple solution to a problem, such simplicity often brings its own difficulties.

David Wilshire: The Minister keeps telling usI am pleased to hear itthat the proposals now have the support of all parties in the House, but does that include the party that has not taken up its seats, the members of which, disgracefully, have been let into this building by his Government? Has he had any discussions with them and does he know their views? They are among the most serious perpetrators of the fraud in question.

Des Browne: If the chief electoral officer can speak for himself, Sinn Fein Members elected to represent their constituents can certainly speak for themselves, although they choose not to in this House. [Interruption.] Their position on the Bill's proposals is no secret. To my knowledge, they have made no specific comments on the provisions relating to national insurance numbersthey may have made such comments to officialsbut they did not support the legislation's general thrust when it was put out for consultation. As I have had no specific response from them on that issue, I am unable to help the hon. Gentleman further.
	However, I shall check. If a response does not reach me, which would surprise me, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with that information. I would not hold my breath for support for the provisions from that particular source.

Eddie McGrady: Pursuant to the point regarding a disagreement between the registration officer and the person applying for a vote, be it physical or postal, may I draw the Minister's attention to amendment No. 4? It provides that someone's name be removed from the register if
	the registration officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information relating to that person which was included in that form pursuant to that requirement.
	That suggests that there will be disputes on certain occasions, which is only to be expected in practical terms. If a dispute results in the registration officer refusing to grant registration, will there be a forum for an appeal or an electoral court, which would enable the applicant for registration to pursue his case and perhaps reach a conclusion?

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. As I stand before him, I do not have the specific answer, although my instincts suggest that a provision in other legislation allows a person who has been denied to register an appeal. Relying on my professional experienceas a solicitor, not as a politicianI suspect that in Scotland the application is made to the sheriff court, but I am not sure. I hope to be able to give him the answer to that question before the debate is out, although I think that what he seeks is in other legislation, if not in the Bill.

Eddie McGrady: I thank the Minister and I understand his position, but will he confirm that the electoral court tradition, which comes into play when a new register is established, will continue and that such a court will be the forum in which disputes are ironed out or concluded?

Des Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall write to him on the detail of the provisions, but I assure him that if someone is denied registration for any reason, not just those relevant to the Bill, they will be able to appeal to the courts, rather than an electoral court, to be included. There is a right to apply to the court, and obviously the judge would exercise the function in relation to electoral law. I assure my hon. Friend that people will not be denied the right to register without the right of appeal.
	Had we not addressed the issues identified as problems in relation to including national insurance numbers, the provisions would have had a number of unhelpful and inappropriate consequences. For example, it would not be possible for the small number of people who do not have a national insurance number for national insurance or benefit purposes to be allocated one so that they may register to vote. That had to be accommodated.
	When I met the Information Commissioner, she made it clear that the employment of the national insurance number in the electoral registration process in Northern Ireland must be put on a clear statutory basis in order for it not to breach the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. That is another potential consequence of using national insurance numbers, about which I was concerned. She also pointed to the need to keep the use of national insurance numbers in that new context under review. The Government intend to do that.

Hugo Swire: What is the Department's estimate of the number of people in Northern Ireland without a national insurance number?

Des Browne: I do not have any such estimate, but, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, it is not necessary for my Department to make an estimate. In years to come, once these provisions are in force, there will be a database of those who are of voting age, but at the moment there is no such database that one can refer to for the information that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Chris Grayling: Surely one of the fundamental ways to make this legislation work will be to know how many national insurance numbers there are now, so that if any attempt is made to use the new system fraudulently we will get a sense of whether something is amiss.

Des Browne: When the hon. Gentleman considers how the system will work in detail, he will appreciate that it is designed to work in the context of other provisions in other parts of the Bill. A database will be built up over the years under the control of the chief electoral officer, which will allow him to check whether anything is amiss as the years go on. These provisions are not intended to cause everyone's national insurance number to be checked with the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Those who understand the construct and the architecture of the Bill will realise that the principal purpose of checking national insurance numbers is to prevent fraud in the exercise of absent voting. The principal way in which the Bill will prevent impersonation will be by photographic identification. Although national insurance numbers will have some merit in relation to all those who register, they will be of most use as a further check on the identity of those people who want to exercise an absent vote.
	It is not of great importance to the working of the system as a whole to know how many national insurance numbers there are in Northern Ireland as a proportion of those who qualify to have a national insurance number. I do not think that that would be a particularly helpful check. Attention will be concentrated on the national insurance numbers of a comparatively small number of people, and that will greatly help the chief electoral officer to check their identity. Everyone could have a national insurance number, but not everyone in Northern Ireland qualifies for an absent vote. The provisions on absent votes in Northern Ireland are different from those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Lady Hermon: Will the Minister clarify an issue that has been raised in the amendments from the other place but is not self-explanatory? The new clause in amendment No. 13 would allow the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to request from the relevant authority
	in the case of . . . an individual recorded as having a national insurance number, any name and former name, date of birth, sex and address as recorded by the relevant authority in respect of the individual in question.
	Why is it relevant for the sex of a voter to be disclosed by the relevant authority?

Des Browne: The hon. Lady asks a question that could be asked about any aspect of these provisions. Why is it relevant to ask the date of birth of a voter? Why is it relevant to ask voters to say whether they are registered at another place? Why is it relevant to ask a voter to apply his or her signature to the forms so that it can be checked? Why is relevant to ask for a voter's national insurance number?

Lady Hermon: rose

Des Browne: I shall let the hon. Lady intervene again, but perhaps she will allow me to answer her first question, then I shall deal with her supplementary.
	We are seeking to obtain information on voters that allows the chief electoral officer, on a proportionate basis, to be as sure as he can ever be that the person who chooses to exercise an absent vote is the person who is entitled to that absent vote. Part of that process is to allow the chief electoral officer the power to check with the Department for Work and Pensions that the person who seeks to use that national insurance number to register under that name at that address is the person who is entitled to use that national insurance number.
	What are the distinguishing features of an individual other than being able to tie a number to their personal appearance? They are the person's address, sex and date of birth. Those are the distinguishing features that the chief electoral officer is able to check. Some names can be spelled differently, and parents are increasingly imaginative in their adoption of names for their children. Recently in my constituency a child was named after a Spanish Harlem black rap singer. I could not tell whether that name, which was imported from north America, was associated with a man or woman or with a male or female child. Many children's names can be used for males and femalesKerry, for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) says from a sedentary position. I am sure that there will be many such names. It is helpful to establish those three or four items of identificationnot in a discriminatory wayto check that the particular national insurance number is being used by the right person.

Lady Hermon: I am impatient by nature, so I apologise for trying to intervene on the Minister earlier. My point was that we are talking about the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill which, for the first time, introduces new identifiers to the electoral registera signature and a date of birth; obviously, the name of the voter was required by previous legislation. In terms of consistency with the personal identifiers to which new clause 6 refers, it seems extraordinary that, having referred to the signature, national insurance number, date of birth and address, the sex of a person should also suddenly be required from the relevant authority.

Des Browne: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. Her contributions have often been helpful, and occasionally in her interventions she has pointed out areas in which changes have needed to be made. I am grateful to her for that, and I treat her contributions seriously. Her intervention requires a response, but that response is that the proposal will assist the chief electoral officer to reassure himself that the identity of the person who is using a particular national insurance number accords with the identity of the person whom he is likely to bring in for interview. If the hon. Lady is satisfied that that is the reasonand that there is no discriminatory reasonperhaps I may move on.
	The Information Commissioner, for whose assistance and help I am very grateful, pointed out to me and the Government that there was a need to keep the use of national insurance numbers in this new context under review. I suggested that the Government would do that, for no other reason than that developments in electronic voting may, in future, offer an alternative solution to the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland, which will allow us to reduce some of the provisions in the Bill and make them more manageable. It is in all our interests, and in the interests of the Northern Ireland electorate, that we keep pace with these developments and consider their potential in the Northern Ireland context.
	I explicitly acknowledge that the first group of Lords amendments enabling national insurance numbers to be used in the electoral process in Northern Ireland reflects a change in Government policy, but I hope that hon. Members will welcome the amendments as a positive response to their concerns and requests. Hon. Members will realise from the length of the amendments that there is no quick-fix solution that will allow for the use of national insurance numbers.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 will require a person who applies to register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland to give his or her national insurance number or to make a statement that he or she does not have one. That deals with the point about numbers raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling).

Lady Hermon: An inconsistency has been thrown up by the Lords amendments. The Minister will recall that in Committee we had a lengthy debate about the fact that the chief electoral officer may dispense with a person's signature that will be required on the register of voters if that person is incapacitated or is unable to read. Will the Minister explain how a person who is incapacitated or is unable to read is expected to make the statement that he does not have a national insurance number?

Des Browne: The provisions in the registration process that take account of a person's disability will apply across the board. They are not restricted to the provision of any particular information.
	In response to a point that the hon. Lady raised earlier, I am able to tell her that when people complete the electoral registration form, they will be invited to indicate their sex by using a prefix to their name. They can use Mr., Mrs., Miss or whatever, and that will also assist the chief electoral officer and the Department for Work and Pensions to establish the sex of a person who has had a national insurance number allocated to them. It may be possible administratively to check the veracity of a national insurance number without actually seeing the person using it.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for being so patient. Will he refer me specifically to the provision in the new clause that applies across the board and allows a person, on the basis of incapacity or being unable to read, to dispense with the requirement to make a statement that he or she does not have a national insurance number?

Des Browne: I am not suggesting to the hon. Lady that she will find such a provision in the Bill. My understanding is that people who cannot make such a statement will be able to have a statement made on their behalf. The form accommodates such a situation. The general provision will apply to anything that is asked for by the registration form. The registration process recognises that some people cannot read or write or that some people have a disability that means they cannot fill in the form themselves. Because of that recognition, the registration process contains a provision that allows information to be communicated to the chief electoral officer on behalf of such people; otherwise they would not get on to the electoral register in the first place. I am saying that the provision applies to any information that we seek to obtain, and that includes whether people have a national insurance number.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister elaborate on what will happen if an inordinately high number of applicants claim that they do not have a national insurance number? What provisions are there to deal with such circumstances?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman anticipates circumstances with which the Bill, as amended in the other place, already deals. The chief electoral officer has the power to check with the Department for Work and Pensions whether the information that people give is correct. Obviously if there is a disproportionate response from people suggesting that they do not have a national insurance numberwe do not have a figure for those who might do that, but we do not think it will be that manyalarm bells will ring with the chief electoral officer. The necessary checks will therefore be made. If there are clusters of such claims, the chief electoral officer's attention will be drawn to the geographical areas where they occur.

Hugo Swire: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more on the thorny subject of national insurance numbers. Will he confirm whether more national insurance numbers are in circulation than there are people on the electoral roll in the United Kingdom? If that is the case, would not this be an ideal time to revisitto use his own wordall those who hold national insurance numbers to find out whether they are the right people in the first place?

Des Browne: Thankfully, I do not have ministerial responsibility for revisiting all those who hold national insurance numbers. That would not be an appropriate use of Government money or a priority for us in the circumstances. I am unable to confirm the hon. Gentleman's assertionI do not know whether he is correctbut my ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions work assiduously to check such information. I do not suggest that they do so weekly, but I understand that computerised trawls are carried out weekly to check that the national insurance numbers in existence relate properly to the people to whom they appear to relate. I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions undertakes significant work on that issue and that the position is improving.
	I do not seek to blame the pre-1997 Government, but the hon. Gentleman will knowhe seems to know something of the backgroundthat the Government inherited a complex system of national insurance numbers, not to mention one of some difficulty. A significant number of national insurance numbers were then in circulation that ought not to have been. He will know that this is a UK-wide database and that it has not been easy to address that challenge because of the numbers involved. I am sure he will want to pay tribute to the work that my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are doing in that regard, but I am not sure that suggesting at the Dispatch Box that it is time to address everyone who holds a national insurance number would necessarily help. I have significant faith in my colleagues in that Department to say that they will sort out the problems that they inherited, which have built up over decades.

Lady Hermon: rose

Nigel Dodds: rose

Des Browne: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment, but I first give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is the only hon. Member present who has not yet intervened.

Nigel Dodds: I am grateful to the Minister for his patience in taking so many interventions. I should like to raise the issue of the officials in the Department for Work and Pensions. I note that provision is made in the amendments to authorise the relevant authority to charge fees to the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. Clearly, a deal of extra work will be involved. What is the extent of the extra costs that might be involved? Where will the money come from to allow the chief electoral officer to cover those extra costs?

Des Browne: The answer to the second question is, of course, that the money will come from the Government. It will come from the taxpayer, through the Government, to the chief electoral officer. I am sure that no hon. Member will oppose that expenditure if it improves the honesty and accuracy of the democratic process in Northern Ireland. Given that the provision is a natural consequence of proposals that all parties have urged on the Government, I am certain that no one will complain about money having to be spent in this area of public expenditure, but at this stage I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman details about how much the proposal is likely to cost.
	I seek to do two things in relation to planning and logistics for implementing the Bill. One of them is to meet the deadline of the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in 2003. Things will have to progress in parallel because of that, so I cannot wait until all the details are known exactly. However, the details are being worked out with the Department for Work and Pensions at present. My officials will be meeting DWP officials in Leeds tomorrow to discuss the issues.
	Estimates will have to be made and I undertake to get in touch with the hon. Gentleman's partyif not the hon. Gentleman himselfabout the progress of the implementation of the provisions. There will be further opportunities for him to raise the issues, and I shall be happy to give him up-to-date briefings on not only the implementation of the Bill but also its costs and logistical consequences.
	I was referring to amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6, which require a person applying to register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland to give his or her national insurance number, or to make a statement that they do not have one.
	I think that the point made by the hon. Member for North Down arose from the fact that the Bill includes a provision to excuse people who cannot read or write from giving a signature. That was necessary because we realise that the Bill would require people to exercise a skill that not everyone has. However, that is not related to the completion of the form. As the hon. Lady knows, most such forms are completed by householders. They can also be completed by canvass. Canvassers from the chief electoral officer go to every house in Northern Ireland, so it is in order for another person to fill in the information for someone who wants to register.
	As well as requiring national insurance numbers, the amendments will require an applicant to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of their application. That provision reflects existing law in Northern Ireland, which requires the collection of such information. I shall return to that point later, but I should like to make some progress lest the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) suggest that I orchestrated interventions in order to keep the debate going.
	Hon. Members will no doubt recall that I wrote to inform them that we intended to give the chief electoral officer the power by regulation to ask applicants to the register whether they were registered at another address in the UK. When drafting the amendments to allow for the use of national insurance numbers, I decided to include in primary legislation a requirement to declare multiple registration on applications for registration. The amendments thus require anyone applying to the register in respect of an address in Northern Ireland to state any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he or she is, or has applied to be, registered. Amendment No. 14, which I will discuss in more detail later, makes it an offence to provide false information pursuant to that requirement.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am the rotter who accused the Government of orchestrating the timetable in respect of the 7 o'clock vote so I had some hesitation about intervening, but my point is important.
	Although there is special provision for the compilation of the register in Northern Ireland, with the requirement that people have to have been resident for three months, will the Minister confirm that the law that applies throughout the kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will not be diluted in any way? The fact that a person is resident is not covered by statuteunfortunately; it is, in effect, self-defined. I hope that the Minister will not mind me using him as an example. He is a London resident, and will be voting in the London elections because he has declared himself a resident.
	To some extent, that point also applies in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister confirm that the three months applies to occupancy and that people will not have to stay at the address night after night? That would be absurd and a large number of people would be disqualified.

Des Browne: It is for the very reason that my hon. Friend is, in his own words, that rotter that I was pleased to give way to him and will give way again. No doubt he realises that our time has been properly occupied by the issues raised and my explanation of the situation. Indeed, nothing has been raised so far that did not merit discussion.
	My hon. Friend wants an assurance that the Bill will not outlaw multiple registrations. The Government have consistently resisted that proposal, which attracted significant support among Opposition parties, for the reason that my hon. Friend brings to our attention. The Government do not intend to restrict those who qualify to vote in Northern Ireland in ways other than those that apply to the rest of the UK or which go beyond restrictions set out in current law, although residency in Northern Ireland is different in that it has one or two other qualifications.
	My hon. Friend rightly recognises that I have exercised the opportunity to be registered as a voter in my constituency in Scotland where I live and in London. That right will also be available to Northern Ireland voters. The Bill will in no way restrict that. However, because of concern about the possible abuse of multiple registration in Northern Ireland, it will help to identify those people who have registered in more than one place. If there is evidence to suggest that that right is being abused, it can be more accurately investigated against a reduced database of people who are registered in more than one place. The requirement to provide that information is reinforced by the fact that it will be an offence to provide false information or not to provide the information requested.

Hugo Swire: Given that an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland travel to and work in the Republic, and in some cases live there for part of the time, what discussions is the Minister having with the Government of the Republic on such matters?

Des Browne: None. Discussions with that Government are not relevant to what we are trying to achieve. It is of no interest to me as the Minister with responsibility for electoral law in Northern Ireland whether people qualify to vote elsewhere. Indeed, some European Union residents qualify to vote in certain elections in the UK and in parliamentary elections in other parts of Europe. Citizens of the Republic will be no different. Knowing whether anyone is registered to vote there and in Northern Ireland is not relevant to what we are trying to achieve. We have our own law, which we have to ensure is observed and properly policed. That is what the Bill helps to do.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once again. In another place, Lord Williams of Mostyn referred to the three-month period, which has now been included in the Bill. He said:
	The applicant will also be required to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of application.[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 1254.]
	Will the Minister confirm whether that residential requirement has now been introduced in Northern Ireland? If so, that will have implications for our European Union obligations and our human rights obligations.

Des Browne: I respond to that question in the certain knowledge that my answer will encourage a contribution from the hon. Lady that will illuminate the debate. This is not a new provision. It is already a requirement in order to vote in Northern Ireland and has been for some time. I am sure that before the debate has finished I will have the precise reference for the hon. Lady, although I cannot supply it off the top of my head.
	In order to register to vote in Northern Ireland, a person has to have that three-month residence. That may partly address the question implied by the previous intervention. We seek not to change the law, but merely to codify it. We intend to codify it in a way and for a reason that I shall discuss in a momentwe want to make it accessible. We are not enacting a new provision.
	The question whether the existing provision creates challenges and consequences in relation to compliance with European Union treaties or human rights legislation could be debated at some length. However, perhaps the hon. Lady will allow me to move on. I have been on my feet for more than an hour and it would be helpful if I were to conclude my remarks and give hon. Members the opportunity to make their contributions. At the conclusion of those contributions, I will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and endeavour to respond to them.
	By including in the Bill the requirements about residence for three months in Northern Ireland and about registration as an elector at a different address, together with the requirements about the national insurance number, signature and date of birth, all the distinctly Northern Ireland features of the registration process can be found in the same place.
	Amendment No. 4 inserts a new subsection (5A) into section 10A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. It adds to the provisions contained in that section regarding the circumstances in which the chief electoral officer is to remove a person's name from the electoral register.
	A person's name will be removed from the register in respect of any address if they return an application for registration in respect of that address without any of the information that they are required to provide by the Bill.
	Therefore, a person's name will be removed if their application does not contain the signature of the person to whom the application relatessubject to the provision in the Bill for those who are unable to append their signatureor is without the date of birth of such person, or their national insurance number, or a statement that they do not have one. A person's name will also be removed if they fail to make a statement that they have been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of their application.
	Paragraph (b) provides for the removal of a person's name from the register where the chief electoral officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information providedfor example, because he believes that it is false. All of that is subject to the existing appeal procedure, which allows people to have recourse to the court.

Lady Hermon: rose

Des Browne: I will give way, hopefully for the last time, to the hon. Lady.

Lady Hermon: That was said so graciously that it invites me to intervene once again. The Minister should reflect for a moment on what he has just said, which was that the applicant would have to make a statement that they have been resident for the preceding three months. Will he again confirm, because the amended Bill is not clear, that the chief electoral officer can dispense with the requirement that the voter has to make the statement in cases of incapacity or inability to read?

Des Browne: Yes. The three-month residence requirement has been included in legislation since at least 1949. I shall endeavour before this debate is concluded to try to find out the exact piece that introduced it. I understand that the intention behind the requirement is to prevent any distortion of a genuine poll of Northern Ireland opinion by large numbers of people from outside Northern Ireland registering in anticipation of an election.
	Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are essentially consequential.
	Amendment No. 9 amends section 6(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which specifies requirements where an elector applies for an absent vote at elections for an indefinite period. An application can be granted only if it states the applicant's national insurance number or that the applicant does not have one, and if the chief electoral officer is satisfied that the national insurance number or statement on the application corresponds with the number or statement which the applicant gave on application for registration, which is of course subject to the chief electoral officer's checking and may have been checked by other provisions in the Bill.
	Amendment No. 11 makes a similar amendment to section 7(1) of the 1985 Act in relation to applications for an absent vote at a particular parliamentary election. So, those two provisions deal with those who have, as it were, standing absent votes, and those who seek to get an absent vote for a particular parliamentary election.
	Amendment No. 13 inserts a new clause and amends schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, which deals with provisions that may be in regulations on registration. The amendment provides for the disclosure by the authority responsible for national insurance numberscurrently the Department for Work and Pensionsto the chief electoral officer, following a request by him, of the national insurance number recorded in respect of a specified individual, or of the fact that the specified individual is not recorded as having a national insurance number.
	The chief electoral officer will also be able to cross-check other information with the Department for Work and Pensions, which will be able to disclose any name or former name of an individual, his or her date of birth, sex and address. We have already debated that in some detail in the context of an intervention. Amendment No. 13 also authorises the authority to which the chief electoral officer makes his requests to charge fees to cover the expenses of complying with such requests. Again in response to an intervention, I have expanded on that.
	Amendment No. 14 makes it an offence to provide false information pursuant to any requirement imposed by the amendments to legislation made by the Bill on an application for registration as an elector in Northern Ireland. It will therefore be an offence for a person to provide a false signature, date of birth or national insurance number, or false information on whether he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for three months prior to registration, or to fail to state any other address in the UK in respect of which he or she is, or intends to be, registered.
	Quite simply, that means that false information given in response to the requirements imposed by the Bill are dealt with in an offence created by the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that, in the confusing world of electoral legislation, such clarity is to be welcomed. A person found guilty of the offence of providing false information on registration shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. The scale of penalties occupied us periodically in Committee. I argue that these penalties are proportionate to offences that are determined by primary legislation.

David Wilshire: While listening to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the penalties that will be imposed, I find myself wondering why he does not pursue the example of driving licences. One cannot only be fined or sent to prison for driving offences, but one can have one's licence taken away. Would it not be appropriate to add to the list of penalties a disqualification from voting for a decent length of time, as the person will clearly have fraudulently tried to get himself on the register?

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman gives an example of a disproportionate penalty. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that people vote, but vote appropriatelythat they do not steal the votes of others, or pretend to be other people, whether real or invented, to exercise a vote. Principally, the Bill is designed to prevent personation or vote stealing. Nothing in it is designed to prevent people from exercising their legitimate right to vote. Since the franchise in the UK was extended, Governments have consistently been careful to restrict the type of penalty that the hon. Gentleman presses on methat is, disqualification from votingto comparatively few people. I welcome the fact that those restrictions are reconsidered periodically: we seek a universal franchise.
	I should have thought that a potential term of imprisonment for up to six months, or fine not exceeding level 5, which I think is some thousands of pounds

Hugo Swire: 5,000.

Des Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful information. I regard 5,000 as a proportionate penalty for such offences. If he checks the Committee Hansard, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will see that that is the level of penalty for offences against electoral law that was urged on me on more than one occasion by the Opposition in Committee, and during remaining stages in the House of Commons.
	Amendment No. 15 amends the long title to include a reference to national insurance numbers as one of the pieces of information that must be supplied to the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland by a person seeking registration. Amendment No. 16 amends the long title to include a reference to the fact that a person will be required to supply, on application to the register, information relating to their period of residence in Northern Ireland and addresses in respect of which they are or have applied to be registered. Those amendments are necessary to ensure that the provisions are within the scope of the Bill. The three-month period of residence is not a new provision.
	I hope that the House will accept the amendments as a positive response to the arguments and concerns articulated by hon. Members of both Houses. I thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in the debates at various stages of the Bill's passage. I know that they are all as keen as I am to ensure that we tackle successfully the problem of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. They are all entitled to claim some credit for the provisions that the Government have now presented to the House, as well as for other parts of the Bill that have been produced in response to their contributions. I hope that hon. Members will not challenge each other about entitlement to claim the credit for the provisions: they urged them on me as a collective, so I suggest that they take collective credit.
	The Bill will tackle electoral fraud in Northern Ireland successfully by countering electoral abuse directly and at every stage of the electoral process. I do not believe that the measures to prevent electoral fraud put unnecessary obstacles in the path of genuine voters, but the Government will require the assistance of all Opposition parties to help the electorate of Northern Ireland to understand the provisions and to make them work properly, so that obstacles are not inadvertently placed in the way of genuine voters. Because they will make the exercise of democracy more true in Northern Ireland, I trust that the provisions will be acceptable to the people there.
	The Bill is the result of extensive consultation and it responds to calls from within Northern Ireland itself and from parties across the political spectrum. That consultation has continued during the Bill's passage through both Houses. We have examined all the issues raised with an open mind and given careful consideration to whether suggested amendments would assist our efforts to combat fraud and improve the electoral system in Northern Ireland. Particularly on the issues of the use of national insurance numbers in the electoral process and a requirement to declare multiple registration, we have been able to deliver appropriate changes to the Bill during its passage through the Lords. I hope that where issues and concerns have been raised we have been able to offer reassurance that they are being addressed, albeit not necessarily by legislation.

Crispin Blunt: For the convenience of the House, I will not take as long as the Minister which, of course, would be impossible because he took up more than half the time for debate; we congratulate him on his marathon effort.

Stephen Pound: Get on with it.

Crispin Blunt: As a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have just witnessed the Minister lengthily turning full circle. The Minister has not performed a U-turn; he has spent four years describing a circle, finally arriving this evening at the position he initially took when signing off and supporting the Select Committee report of 11 March 1998. It is pertinent to examine the Minister's role in that Committee. He was sceptical when questioning Mr. Pat Bradley, the chief electoral officer. I shall give the House a flavour of the Minister's contributions to provide a perspective on where he stood in the first place.
	On page nine of Mr. Bradley's evidence on 5 November 1997, the Minister said:
	Good afternoon, Mr. Bradley. My questions are designed to see if you can assist us in quantifying the extent of the problem in the generality and, if you can, in relation to the different types of electoral abuse that you identify in your memorandum. Have you made any attempt to quantify the extent of this problem in the generality of your extensive experience of electoral practice in Northern Ireland?
	Passing over Mr. Bradley's response for the sake of time, suffice it to say that it did not satisfy the Minister, who said:
	With respect, Mr. Bradley, you are not answering my question. What I am interested in finding out from you is have you either yourselfsince you seem to do a lot of this yourselfor your staff actually counted the instances where you have a question mark about what is going on or where there is evidence to suggest there is electoral malpractice?
	Mr. Bradley said:
	If you refer back to my report
	The Minister interrupted:
	I will refer to your report because it is from your report that I see an absence of statistics. On page 1 of your report, paragraph 2.3, headed Multiple registration, the second sentence says: 'There have been allegations of deliberately false multiple registrations in some constituencies as part of a planned electoral abuse campaign.' Presumably, Mr Bradley, if those allegations were made to your office you should know how many of them there were. Do you have the information to say how many such allegations were made?
	Mr. Bradley replied:
	Unfortunately, I have heard many allegations but no specific facts were given to me.
	The Minister said:
	I am sorry, Mr. Bradley, I am not trying to be difficult here. I just want to know if you have the information that would allow this Committee to get at numbers. Do you actually count the number of such allegations and could you give this Committee information about the numbers of those allegations by reference to constituencies?
	Mr. Bradley was unable to satisfy the Minister.

Des Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House the point?

Crispin Blunt: I am making a point about the Minister's attitude to the legislation and his proper scepticism about allegations of electoral abuse in Northern Ireland when a member of the Select Committee. Having sat through the taking of evidence, he agreed a report, a central requirement of which was to tidy up the register to ensure that it was clean and that the issue of absent vote fraud was addressed. We have had to go through agonising proceedings, both in Committee and on Third Reading, and it is only now that Government amendments have been introduced in the House of Lords to put into effect what the Minister as a Back-Bench Member signed up to more than four years ago; finally, we are going to get satisfactory legislation on to the statute book. The Minister took a considerable time to put the case for the amendments; perhaps he thought it would be less painful to take up half our debate with his circumlocution than have us point out that case to him.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way. It did not go unnoticed that I delayed the Minister considerably this afternoon, but I was genuinely concerned that the Lords amendments did not tie in with the Bill or appear to be compatible with the measure which we debated both in the House and in the Committee on which the hon. Gentleman served. Does he accept that during those four years data protection legislation has been a severe impediment to the disclosure of information on, for example, national insurance numbers?

Crispin Blunt: I certainly would not criticise the hon. Lady for intervening on the Minister, who chose to accept her interventions. She is in no way responsible for the length of his speech. As for the detail of the data protection legislation, the position has not changed during the four years in which the Government have been considering the measure. The Government faced the same problem when they received the report as they do now when proposing their solution.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was probably closer to the truth in an article in The Daily Telegraph last year entitled Sinn Fein is accused of massive vote fraud. He said:
	There is no doubt Sinn Fein is involved in electoral fraud on a massive scale.
	He went on to say that Sinn Fein
	have been working on it for years and Government have not been treating the issue seriously.

Crispin Blunt: I agree. That criticism has been made consistently, particularly by the Opposition, since Second Reading on 10 July last year. The one criticism that could be made of the Government is their lack of speed in introducing legislation. I hope that the Minister accepts that argument.

Des Browne: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that before 1997 it did not occur to the previous Government that such provisions could have helped?

Crispin Blunt: The Government are responding to a Select Committee report published on 11 March 1998; that Committee was formed under the Labour Government, in a Parliament when the Minister first served as an MP, as did I. The Government are to be commended for introducing legislation in response to a Select Committee report to deal with a particular problem in Northern Ireland. However, the Minister cannot get away with suggesting that no attempt was made to deal with electoral fraud during the previous 18 years; he knows that a significant number of pieces of legislation attempted to address different areas of electoral fraud. The battle will not be fought and won with the Bill; it may well be that further problems arise if people who wish to defraud the system can find a way round the legislation that we pass. It will then be up to us, either in this Parliament or in future Parliaments, to attempt to address that electoral fraud; the situation is not static.
	I should like to draw the attention of the House to two issues in light of the Select Committee report. In introducing the Lords amendments, the Minister suggested that the use of national insurance numbers was mainly to address absent votes. I disagree; we need to go back to first principles. I agree with paragraph 23 of the Select Committee report, to which he signed up, which states:
	An accurate Register is vital. Without a trustworthy Register, there can be no secure confidence in the electoral system. At present, it is not absolutely clear how reliable the Register is. We do not share the confidence of the Interim Review Report that 'while there may be some scope for some minor adjustments in the current system for the registration of electors in Northern Ireland, in actual terms the accuracy of the Register is not seriously in question.'
	On the contrary, in our view the evidence indicates that there may be a serious level of multiple registration, at least in some parts of Northern Ireland.
	That is why the inclusion of national insurance numbers and multiple registration were at the centre of what the Opposition were seeking to achieve if the proposed legislation were to be satisfactory to take on electoral fraud in the most effective way. It would be churlish of us not to welcome the fact that in another place our objectives have been achieved.
	The Minister has attempted to present to the House that facing the Government was the agonising question of appraisal of the use of national insurance numbers. A nice and simple solution, as it appeared, has been discovered to have flaws that the Minister and the Government have gradually been able to address. The fact that NI numbers were not fool-proof was known by the Committee when it wrote the report in 1998. Paragraph 56 reads:
	No single piece of information is going to provide an absolute guarantee against fraud, but the harder it becomes to falsify proof of identity the more the balance of effort and gain turns away from favouring vote cheats. Useful identifiers which might be included in applications to register as a voter are the date of birth . . . and the voter's national insurance number. Neither of these pieces of information is completely secure, particularly against organised vote theft, but their use would deter opportunistic fraud.
	It is[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that that is a different point. It is not. It is vital that the register is as clean and reliable as it can be. If there are two numeric identifiersfor example, date of birth and the national insurance numberto be set against the name of a registered voter, there would be a geometrically increased reliability provided by the computer checking that could be made of the register.

Des Browne: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is making a different point. There is no argument that using different pieces of information about individuals improves the prospect of being able to identify them accurately. Equally, there is no question that the limitations imposed by the state of the national insurance database posed problems. The question is how those problems can be addressed in a way that allows that database to be used as one of the identifiers. That is the point that I was making. If the hon. Gentleman did not understand it then, perhaps he might understand it now.

Crispin Blunt: The Minister is splitting hairs. He made it clear in his introductory remarks that there appeared to be a nice and simple solution and that it seemed that there were no problems with it. He failed to say that there was awareness of the problems in 1998. National insurance numbers are not entirely fool-proof but, in conjunction with date of birth, they provide an opportunity to cross-reference and cross-check data against the elector. The Bill will give the chief electoral officer the opportunity to ensure that the register will be as robust as it reasonably can be in current circumstances.
	Perhaps the Minister's claims disguise the reality. Parliament owes a debt to my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, who leads for the Conservative party in another place, and to the Minister's noble Friend, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the way in which they considered the Bill. I believe that there was joint determination that the other Departments that hold national insurance numbers should not be allowed to throw bureaucratic hurdles in the way of the proper objective to make the register as robust as possible, and that absent vote fraud should be made as difficult as possible.
	I recognise Lord Williams's efforts and the contribution that presumably the Minister will have made within the Department. He failed to succeed during earlier consideration in this place but we know that at the last gasp, perhaps with there being the opportunity of having the measure imposed upon the Government in another place, it has been possible to convince others in the government machine outside the Northern Ireland Office of the necessity of giving access to national insurance numbers so that they might be checked.
	It is rather a pity that the bureaucratic battle was not won rather earlier. If that had been achieved, it would not be necessary for this debate to take place, given the Minister's rather inelegant rotation of position. Better late than never. The Opposition thoroughly welcome the amendments.
	As for multiple registration, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) should be cautioned on accepting the Minister's undertaking that he will be in touch, and if not with him, with a member of his party. The Minister gave a similar undertaking about consultation in Committee on multiple registration. He was gracious enough to accept that the consultation was not entirely flawless when we came to Report. [Interruption.] The Minister is grumbling in his place. I remind the House that he promised to consult all the parties involved in multiple registration. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and I heard nothing from him about that consultation. He was gracious enough to apologise to me at an earlier stage of our proceedingsI am grateful that he is nodding in agreement.
	In Committee, we discussed whether multiple registration should be included in primary legislation. I introduced new clause 8 in Committee, which would have included the provision in the Bill. There would have been a requirement for multiple registrations to be recorded. The Minister said in Committee that there were attempts to outlaw multiple registration. That was the position in the amendments set out in the name of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). However, they were not supported by the official Opposition. That might have been the implication behind the introduction of the proposed legislation that we are considering. It was in response to the assurances that we would achieve the objectives that we sought that I withdrew new clause 8 in Committee.
	I was delighted that we would achieve the objective by regulation. That would have been satisfactory to an extent, but we would have much preferred the provision to appear in the Bill. However, the requirement has been introduced in another place to register multiple addresses in the Bill. That is enormously to be welcomed.
	We have achieved all but limited aspects of the substantive amendments tabled in Committee. One of them was a timetable to ensure that photographic identification would be in place for the Assembly elections in 2003. I understand from the Minister when he introduced the amendments that it is still the Government's intention to have that system up and running for the elections. In Committee I wanted to place that as a duty on the Government by having it written into the Bill, to ensure that there was no element of discretion. A little more than a year away from the Assembly elections, the Minister is telling the House that it is still his intention to have the system in place. If that is achieved, it will be a source of satisfaction.
	The Bill, as amended by the House of Lords, significantly advances the battle against electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. The Lords amendments are essential to make the Bill as robust as possible and have hugely added to its strength. Her Majesty's Opposition therefore welcome them and will, of course, support them.

Eddie McGrady: In view of the time, I shall be brief. We welcome the Bill's progress. Electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is an endemic problem. As I said on Second Reading, it is not just a casual or an individual event; it is a concerted, planned campaign in a paramilitary style, carried out by virtually paramilitary organisations.
	I repeat that electoral fraud has changed some of the representation of the people to the House, and it could change the direction of politics in Northern Ireland as a whole. That is why the true voice of democracy is so important in Northern Ireland, more so than anywhere else, particularly in these times of change, transition and sensitivity. However long it has taken, we warmly welcome the fact that the Bill will shortly become law.
	It bothers me not how the conversion took placewhether it was divine intervention, the road to Damascus, or the eloquence, persuasiveness and logic of members of the Committee that changed the Government's mind. I suspect that the Minister was an ardent adherent of his earlier comments and attitudes to the Select Committee, but was implementing orders to say that the introduction of national insurance numbers as a means of identification was far too complex. I do not think that he ever believed that. I certainly did not believe what he was saying, and I suspect that he did not believe it, either.
	We welcome the compulsory registration of multiple registration, where someone is registered elsewhere. That is vital in the context of Northern Ireland. There is also the problem of multiple occupation. In the electoral register of Northern Ireland, there are instances of 10, 12 or 14 people being registered from a two-bedroom flat. That is an interesting concept in terms of human dynamics and it has an adverse impact on election results.
	In my brief intervention, I asked about amendment No. 4 to section 5A, concerning the discretion of the registration officer and how the applicant for registration would be assisted if he disputed the registration officer's findings. I referred to electoral courts, but that is much too lofty an authority. What I meant was the hearings of the registration officer, which usually take place in December or January. That should be where the refused applicant is given an opportunity to rebut a decision. After all, it will sometimes be a subjective decision by the registration officer. That should be the setting for an appeal to take place, without prejudice to the person's legal right to a much more formal process in a court of law.
	I was interested in the rather short answer that the Minister gave the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) about funding, logistics and personnel. I am deeply concerned about those matters, but the Minister touched on them only briefly. He may be able to elaborate in his winding-up speech, if time permits. If the new provisions are to be fully and properly implemented, it is essential that there should be a greater number of personnel, both in the registration offices and particularly in the polling stations on the day of the poll.
	It is equally important that personnel be of the calibre and character to understand their duties and to be determined to enforce them. We can legislate all we like, and there can be rules and regulations regarding polling stations, but if the personnel in the polling stations are not confident of back-up in implementing them, all our work will come to naught. I am anxious that, by direction, rule or regulation, personnel should be properly briefed.
	I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the Minister's assurance this evening that the non-photographic identification of a voter at a polling station would be withdrawn by 1 May 2003. That is an ambitious programme for the Minister at this rather late stage of the process. I am somewhat comforted by his assurance, however. Perhaps he can indicate in his winding-up speech or in writing whether he has any further thoughts concerning the matters about which he was going to communicate with members of the Select Committee regarding driving licencesthe photographic part only being available as a means of identification, quite satisfactorilyand regarding what progress has been made in respect of the photo-identity of the elderly citizen through the Translink photographic transport pass. As the process is entirely voluntary, those would help to determine how many people do not have any means of photo-identity and would greatly reduce the number who need to be serviced.
	I know that many other hon. Members, especially from Northern Ireland, want to speak, and I would like to hear from them. I must tell the Minister, however, that we are disappointedin some respects severely disappointedby the shortfalls in the Bill and the Lords amendments.
	One of the most difficult aspects of voting in Northern Ireland is intimidation on the day at the polling station. We had sought by statute or by regulation the creation of a cordon sanitaire around a polling station, so that political party activists could not act in an intimidatory fashion towards the voter. That has not been taken on board.
	I am also deeply disappointed that responsibility for preventing fraud at the polling station still resides primarily with the voluntary party official known as the polling clerk, with all the legal responsibilities and liabilities that he may incur. It is probably the only instance in which a policeman can observe a crime being committed without having the power to intervene to prevent it. Again, that did not come within the compass of the Bill.
	Finally, it may be a hoary old chestnut to many in the House, but much of the tension, impersonation and wrongdoing in elections in Northern Ireland could have been ameliorated considerably if the Government had had the courage to introduce that form of election which pertains in every other election in Northern Ireland except elections to the House. I refer to proportional representation. Proportional representation in Northern Ireland applies to European elections, local government elections and Assembly elections. The only elections to which it does not apply are those to the House.
	I know the arguments that are used, but I find them rather light arguments, and sometimes spurious. The brutal fact is that by its nature, proportional representation would take much of the sectarian bigotry, hatred and attitudes out of the campaign and would reflect the real wishes of the electorate in Northern Ireland much better than the first-past-the-post system. That system means that if a candidate gets half a dozen votes more than their opponent as a result of fraud or personation, they can win the day. In practical terms, that could not happen under proportional representation.
	None the less, I do not want to look a gift-horse in the mouth. On behalf of my party and constituents, I welcome very much this valiant attempt to correct the imperfectionsto put it politelyof our electoral system, and to seek in practical terms to prevent fraud and thereby do away with a lot of the intimidation that the current system engenders.

Lembit �pik: In a debate lasting two hours and 23 minutes, I note that the Minister took one hour and 13 minutes to make his speech and respond to the other points that were made. In other words, just over half the time was devoted to the Minister's retraction of the position that he has so assiduously argued at every stage of the Bill's passage until today.
	It is understandable that the Minister wanted to take some time to explain how this 11th-hour enlightenment came upon him, although the points that he made were pretty clear to hon. Members in all parts of the Houseexcept those whipped by the Government. I welcome his honesty in implying acceptance that the Government may have been wrong to show such a degree of inflexibility at earlier stages. Apropos of our debate on the programme motion, if time is squeezed towards the end of this debate because of the length of his speech, it will be another instance in which one is made more cautious about such motions. Fortunately, the Government did the right thing today, not least in the eyes of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), but I am a bit cautious about programme motions, so we will see how the time goes for this group of amendments and the remaining one.

Lady Hermon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I want to make two points. First, in fairness to the Minister, I took up a lot of his time with serious interventions. Secondly, last December, with regard to national insurance numbers, the Minister said:
	I am still in reflective mode.[Official Report, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 320.]
	The points made in Committee preoccupied him. I know that it took an awful long time to get him out of reflective mode, but he came out of it positively.

Lembit �pik: I agree on both points. I am not condemning the Minister for the time that he took: it is a sign of strength, not weakness, to be willing to respond to interventions across the Floor of the House. It is to his credit that he did not waffle or waste our time with his responses. Furthermore, the hon. Lady's interventions were based on sound understanding of the issues and added value to the debate. I was suggesting only that the Minister and the Government are responsible for working out how much time is required, but I am not even condemning the Minister on that point: if we finish comfortably by 7 o'clock, no damage will have been done. I seek only to put down a marker, as what happens now will guide our future behaviour. However, we have had the debate on the programme motion, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I wish to turn to more substantive points about the amendments.
	In view of the debate, the Minister's comments and the proceedings of Standing Committee D on 16 October 2001, all sides now finally agree that the proposal on national insurance numbers is sensible. That position has been firmly held throughout by all parties except the one in government; indeed, it seems that the Minister himself took the same view in his earlier incarnation as a Back Bencher. To the credit of the Government, they have now come round to a commonsense position that is agreed in all other parts of the House. The amendment is welcome, but it has come at the 11th hour. I seek the Minister's explicit reassurance on when he expects all the mechanics that are required to implement it to be in place. Evidently, next year's elections have a fixed date and we want the arrangements to be in place by that time.
	As a wistful footnote to the remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate, I point out the changes could have been introduced earlier. In fairness to the Minister, he made the same point. We did not have to wait until 1997 or 1998 to consider the matter, but I accept that the Conservative Government made various efforts to try to close the loopholes that allowed electoral fraud to occur on the massive scale on which it has previously occurred in the Province.
	Of course, we will not get certainty even with the introduction of the provisions on national insurance numbers. If people try hard enough, they will find a way through. We are playing a probabilities game, but if the amendment tightens up electoral fraud substantially and reduces it measurably in the ProvinceI shall return to that wider issueit will be worth while.
	It seems ironic that the process has required the upper House to talk sense into the Government. I want to make a couple of points about that process, as in some ways the most important lesson for the future is the degree of flexibility that the Government need to ensure that they do not again miss a trick on an issue such as the inclusion of national insurance numbers. I wonder what would have happened if they had been able to whip their vote in the upper House to maintain the Bill in unamended form. I am not saying that the Minister would necessarily have ignored the amendment, but circumstantially speaking, I am aware of the extreme measures that he took to justify the absence of any proposal for change on 16 October 2001.
	The hon. Member for Reigate cited the comments made by the Minister in 1998. I suspect that one could argue, perhaps slightly tenuously, that the Data Protection Act 1998 made matters very different, but those changes occurred before October last year, when the Minister was scratching around to try to give the impression that what was being proposed could not be achieved. One of the examples that he gave to show why it would be unreasonable to include the national insurance number related to a childless French woman who was married to a Northern Ireland resident, did not work or claim benefits, but would be entitled to vote. Technically, such people may exist, but I can only conclude from the Minister's volte face that he now accepts that what happens in respect of such a small number of people will be acceptable collateral damage in order to close the loophole. I understand from his comments todayI refer mainly to those made in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)that such individuals would not be barred from voting by the arrangements that he outlined.

Des Browne: Can the hon. Gentleman work out the probability of somebody whose roots are in the Baltic states being educated in Northern Ireland and representing a Welsh constituency?

Lembit �pik: As an aside, let me say that when I first applied for selection to represent Montgomeryshire, the Welsh Liberal Democrats held a sweepstake on who would be chosen. The odds against me were regarded as so large that they had to refund some money, because I had not been included on the list. So I accept that stranger things have happened. Perhaps I should also briefly cite the occasion when, somewhat erroneously, somebody said in a moment of rage that there were more Estonians than Etonians in the Cabinet. As the first Estonian to speak on the Floor of the House, I can claim credit for having bucked the statistics.
	The Minister tried hard to justify why it would be unacceptable to introduce national insurance numbers as a kind of insurance policy against electoral fraud. All the details are there for hon. Members and the public to see in the record of the Standing Committee on 16 October, so I need not labour the point.
	I suggest that the benefit of being willing to listen to and accept such points at an earlier stage cannot be overstated. Two elements slowed down the process; we could have got here much faster. First, the Minister was apparently under an obligation not to give way on this point in the face of insuperable, unarguable evidence from all sides that it was a desirable change that would make a considerable difference to the amount of electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. He might have saved us time if he had taken a more circumspect approach, instead of committing himself as he did, thereafterunderstandablynot being able to reverse that position until the Bill went to the upper House. Of course, this time the situation has been recovered and we are able to do the right thing now. However, on previous occasionsI shall not give a long listthe Government have been able to push legislation through, to its detriment.
	My second point concerns consultation. The hon. Member for Reigate rightly cited an occasion on which neither he nor I had been consulted. The Minister gracefully apologised for that at the time, and has showed some contriteness today.

Crispin Blunt: Contrition.

Lembit �pik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the grammar lesson.
	Consultation is absolutely vital in dealing with technically complicated matters relating to the Province. The Government have done well in consulting on many pieces of Northern Irish legislationfor example, the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000but this time I felt that Ministers were not necessarily listening to an appropriate degree.
	Today's debate may hold lessons for the United Kingdom as a whole as regards electoral fraud. If there is a massive increase in the use of postal votes, we may want to assess what is working in the Province before considering implementing such changes on the mainland. Of course, that must be balanced by civil liberties, cost-benefit considerations and so forth. I put that down as a marker for future debates if it turns out that electoral fraud is prompted or stimulated by changes that we make to the electoral process.

Des Browne: indicated assent

Lembit �pik: I see that the Minister has some sympathy with that point.
	It is to the Government's credit that they have finally listened, although it has taken a long time for us to get here. I am confident that these changes will make a difference to the opportunity for organised electoral fraud to take place in the Province, although realistically it may still be possible. As the Minister said, we have conquered the summit of the debate together, but if the Government had listened to us a little more we might have found a rather faster route.

Harry Barnes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) for telling us about the seriousness of this matter. Electoral fraud in Northern Ireland is a massive issue, and we should all be concerned about getting it right. Regardless of whether the Bill gets it absolutely right, it represents a considerable advance.
	On using national insurance numbers for electoral registration, I feel a bit like Zebedee in The Magic Roundabout. At one time I stood in one position, then I jumped to the opposite position, and now I am minded to jump back againunless something dramatic happens in the next 20 minutes or so.
	I, with my hon. Friend the Minister, was a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs that produced the report. Although the Conservative spokesman pointed out that our report said that we should be under no illusion that the national insurance system was perfect, and difficulties were bound to be involved, I and other members of the Committee felt that it offered a unique and precise, if not perfect, set of identifiers, which, despite the qualifications detailed in the report, represented a good idea that could be propounded. I willingly took that position, at which point I was clearest about the issue.
	When we listened to what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Standing Committee, it began to emerge that the matter was not as straightforward and clear as we had thought in the Select Committee, and to some extent those doubts remain. The balance may have moved back in the other direction, but the earlier remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) revealed areas of difficulty. The Minister's argument about the complexity and sophistication of the measures in the amendments, and the fact that other legislation potentially offers a court avenue, seems to tip the argument in favour of the measure that we initially suggested. Nevertheless, I am not as solidly and fully convinced of that as I was when the Select Committee produced the report, because genuine doubts have been sown. I discussed them in Standing Committee, and they are still there.
	We will not tackle the problem of electoral registration in Northern Ireland until we tackle it for the whole of the United Kingdom. We must do that by developing a method that is as watertight as we can achieve under a new technologythat is, by using identity cards in the process of electoral registration. We have not yet reached that stage. We cannot do it in this provision for Northern Ireland, so we are making the best guess that we can in the circumstances by finally accepting that national insurance numbers, in addition to the other measures in the Bill, will order matters as well as possiblealthough nothing is absolutely certain, and there may be difficulties in the courts.
	Another major issue is multiple registration. I remain committed to the view that that should not take place. The only concept worthy of picking up from the poll tax is that there could be registration at one sole or main place of residence. Rolling registers should enable us to develop to a position whereby a person is mainly resident in one area, in which they exercise their franchise. Again, that cannot simply be added to this provision for Northern Ireland. Indeed, Northern Ireland raises problems as regards extending registration of a single nature throughout the rest of Britain, because it has a three-month registration period. That is probably necessary so that areas are not manipulated and flooded by people deliberately moving in from the Republic of Ireland to distort a particular electoral result. As long as there is a three-month waiting period in Northern Ireland, and we are trying to fix a system with Britain, it will not be possible to have single registration provisions. We shall have to crack that problem in future.
	The rolling electoral register has exacerbated the problem because as soon as people move elsewhere in the United Kingdom, they can register in the place that should be their sole or main place of registration. If they move from Britain to Northern Ireland, they will have to wait three months before registering there. That will hold matters up. It will not be easy simply to move registration from one area to another.
	Although I have some principled proposals that, I believe, would improve electoral registration for the whole United Kingdom and be especially beneficial in Northern Ireland, where there are considerable problems, the measure is welcome. I believe that we have got it about right.

Lady Hermon: I shall keep my remarks brief because I have intervened several times. I am conscious that other hon. Members, and not only those with Northern Ireland constituencies, want to contribute.
	The Bill is infinitely better than the version that first saw the light of day. Including national insurance numbers as well as signatures and dates of birth will reduce the opportunities for electoral fraud in Northern Ireland. That must be welcomed. I pay tribute to those in the Northern Ireland Office and those who drafted the amendments on such a technical aspect of law. They have done an excellent job.
	When I entered the Chamber this afternoon, I had two main reservations. First, hon. Members know that the original Bill made a specific dispensation for those who are incapacitated or unable to read. They are not required to provide a signature. The amendments require national insurance numbers or a statement that a person does not have one, and a statement about residence. It was unclear whether the voter had to make those statements. The Bill and the amendments do not provide a dispensation equivalent to that for providing a signature.
	My anxiety deepened when I read the debate in the other place on 25 February 2002. Lord Williams of Mostyn made matters clear. He said:
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 will require a person applying to be registered in respect of a Northern Ireland address to give a national insurance number, or to make a statement that he does not have such a number. The applicant will also be required to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of application, and to state any other address.[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2002; Vol. 631, c. 1254.]
	Suffice it to say that I was worried about the lack of an exemption for people who are incapacitated or unable to read and had to make a statement about residence or their national insurance numbers. The Minister's comments were designed to be useful and helpful, and he clarified the matter. He said that the statement does not necessarily have to be made by the elector. The amendments do not make that clear, and I greatly appreciate the Minister's clarification.
	That leaves the three-month residence requirement. The Minister provided some insight and said that the requirement has existed since 1949. If he has been able to find the relevant legislation, it is doubtless an old Stormont measure.

Harry Barnes: The provision is contained in Representation of the People Acts that are passed by Parliament, not Stormont.

Lady Hermon: I appreciate that intervention. It is helpful to know that it is not Stormont, but United Kingdom legislation. That makes matters more interesting because 1949 pre-dates our obligations under the European convention on human rights and the 1957 EEC treaty. I want to consider both measures because the Minister should tackle both if possible.
	The first protocol and article 3 of the convention on human rights have been incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, but would have been part of our legislation since we ratified the convention in 1953. Article 3 obliges the high contracting parties, including the United Kingdom,
	to undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.
	It does not state: the opinion of the people resident for three months in the choice of the legislature.
	My anxiety is underlined by the fact that under the 1957 EEC treaty, article 48 guarantees the free movement of workers from one member state to another. I am sure that the Minister knows that the High Court ruled in the landmark case of Van Duyn v. the Home Office several years ago that article 48, especially the second and third paragraphs, were directly effective in the United Kingdom. They give workers from member states, including the Republic of Ireland, the right to move freely from one member state to another.
	After the treaty, the important Council regulation 1612 was introduced in 1968. It guarantees to workers who move from one member state to another the same social and tax advantages as the workers of the host member state. Given that the three-month residence requirement has existed since 1949, the Minister must deal with its compatibility with our obligations under the European convention on human rights and especially EU legislation.
	Will the Minister explain the reason for the two definitions of the Representation of the People Act 1983? Clause 1 states:
	The Representation of the People Act 1983 . . . (in this Act referred to as 'the 1983 Act').
	Clause 7 repeats that by stating:
	In this Act, 'the 1983 Act' means the Representation of the People Act 1983.
	That is superfluous. A definition of the principal Act would have been better; it is not defined at all. I rest my case, and look forward to the Minister's replies.

David Wilshire: Unlike the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who spoke as a contributor from the minor parties, I have no complaints about the Minister's opening speech. He was helpful, patient and did his best to answer a range of important and genuine queries that hon. Members from all parties raised.

Lembit �pik: I went to some lengths to stress that I did not condemn the Minister for the length of his speech; I was making a point about the programme motion.

David Wilshire: It did not sound like that at the time; it sounded like a criticism, which prods me to say that I am not criticising. However, the spokesman for the minor parties is right that the debate tells us much about the stupidity of the programme motion. After a sensible debate in which the Minister, quite rightly, took up a lot of time, we are about to run out of time on the first group of amendments. Two of my hon. Friends still want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which means that there will not be the slightest chance of the Minister being able to respond fully and properly to the additional points being made, let alone to start any sort of a debate on the second group of amendments, unless people can now be persuaded to shut up. I am sure that that is what the Government would like, so that we cannot demonstrate the futility of yet another programme motion curtailing debate in the House and curtailing our opportunities to press the Minister to explain the Government's priorities.
	That said, it would be wrong of me to say other than that I, like everyone else, welcome a change of heart when it is on offer. Heaven only knows, it is rare enough for any Government, let alone this one, to change their mind. We ought all, therefore, to put on record that we appreciate that. Exactly what has led the Minister to this is private grief on which I do not wish to intrude. I just want to thank him.
	I want to say one or two things about the Minister's comments at the beginning of the debate. Those comments are relevant, because we had an exchange of views about why the chief electoral officer had changed his mind. I accept that the Minister does not know those reasons; he was very honest about that, for which I am grateful. We ought to know the reasons, however, because if we are to make a fair, rational judgment about these matters, we need to know what the chief electoral officer has now concluded. I hope that he has not simply changed his mind because the Government told him to. That would never be a justification.

Des Browne: indicated dissent

David Wilshire: The Minister shakes his head, and I am glad, because that suggests that that is not what happened. If the Minister is certain that the chief electorial officer has not changed his mind because of Government pressure, he must have some reason for that certaintyhe must know what the reason was. If the Minister rules out one reason, he must have some evidence on which to shake his head and say no. I urge him to go back to the chief electoral officer after this debate to ask him the reason, and to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) with the answeror place a copy of the letter or statement in the Libraryso that we can see it.

Des Browne: indicated dissent

David Wilshire: The Minister is again shaking his head. If he would like to intervene to say why he is not prepared to do that, the House would be grateful. The Minister does not want to tell us why he is not prepared to get the answer to a question. That is typical of a Government who do not like to answer questions if it does not suit their purpose. That is entirely wrong.
	Another comment that the Minister made, but did not pursue as much as I would have liked, was that all the parties in the House supported his change of heart. That is good as far as it goes, but he then went on to say that he was unable to tell us what Sinn Fein-IRA thought about the proposal, although he had a general sense that they were not much in favour of it when it was originally published. It is crucial that the House should know what the agents of terror think about our attempts to improve democracy in Northern Ireland. Not only are they prepared to ignore the wishes of their constituents in refusing to take their seats here, but if they are against this attempt to clamp down on fraud, we are entitled to assume that they welcome fraud. That would certainly seem to be the case. It is, therefore, remiss of the Minister not to have made any effort to discover what Sinn Fein-IRA really think, because we need to know.

Hugo Swire: Is my hon. Friend aware of what Baroness Park said recently in the other place? She quoted the following statement from Sinn Fein:
	Sinn Fein believes that there is a compelling and logical argument to ensure that the electorate has the maximum freedom to exercise their vote as freely as possible.[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 463.]
	What does my hon. Friend deduce from that?

David Wilshire: I deduce that I am glad someone has taken the trouble to think about this, and to say something about it, unlike the Minister, who clearly has not made any such effort.

Des Browne: I am reluctant to take up any more time in this debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is inadvertently misrepresenting my position. Sinn Fein was, of course, consulted on these matters, as were all parties. The quotation that the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) referred to in the other place came from the early paragraphs of its response to the consultation process, which is available for anybody to read. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other point, I merely pointed out that I had not had a response from Sinn Fein on the point that he raised. I did not say that I did not seek a response, but that I had not had one.

David Wilshire: If I misrepresented the Minister, of course I apologise, and I am grateful that he has explained his position for the benefit of the House.
	The Minister said earlier that it was right for the Government to take the necessary time to get the legislation into the form that it now takes. Of course it is necessary to take a degree of time, but on this occasion, the most enormous amount of time seems to have been taken. Suspicious people such as I cannot help but wonder what caused that. Could it possibly be that one of the things going through the Government's mind was that the last thing they wanted was to upset Sinn Fein-IRA ahead of a general election? After all, the Government have been busily giving in on one-sided deals throughout their term of office, and perhaps they did not want to minimise Sinn Fein's opportunity to win more seats.
	I am of an equally suspicious mind when it comes to this Government's dealing with terrorists, and it may well be that, by taking the time that they say was necessary, they will have allowed Sinn Fein-IRA to win more votes in the Assembly election than they would have done if we had clamped down on fraud ahead of it. If that is not the case, I am sure that the Minister will put the matter right.
	Many issues remain to be explored in this debate; I have a list of them. They are important to the people of this country, who need to know the answers. Yet here we are again, three minutes from a guillotine, without any real opportunity to debate what needs debating, and two of my colleagues still want to contribute. I will protest again, therefore, that I am being silenced by the Government. I am not being allowed to debate what needs to be debated. The Government are escaping from being held to account by the House by hiding behind programme motions and guillotines. That said, other hon. Members wish to speak.

Gregory Campbell: I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in the original Select Committee consideration of the inclusion of national insurance numbers, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) who proposed that they should be included. A significant number of people over the past 30 years have engaged in electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland, and it is no coincidence that thousands of absent-vote applications have mounted up in the constituencies where Sinn Fein either has a Member of Parliament or is endeavouring to win the seat.
	My party welcomes the Bill. It is not perfect, but it will be a substantial improvement if it is implemented in time. I hope that the Minister will take note that a court case may well end up in the House of Lords that might not permit the Assembly elections to be in May 2003; they might be earlier. That being the case, I hope that he will ensure that the legislation will be proceeded with as quickly as possible, to prevent further malpractice. There are those in Northern Ireland, principally Sinn Fein-IRA, who have mastered the art of the abuse of the electoral system to the tune of many thousands of votes. They have done that in election after election, and will no doubt do so again unless this Bill is implemented as speedily as possible. We therefore welcome the Bill, even if it costs the 750,000 that it appears from the notes that it will cost. We welcome it none the less.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	It being Seven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [28 June and this day], put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the Business to be concluded at that hour.
	Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

As amended, further considered.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman will indulge me, perhaps I might make a point of order myself, which I hope may be of assistance to the House. It may be for the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members if I remind them that, just before proceedings were adjourned on the last occasion, the promoters' new clause 1 was read a second time. The amendments to the new group were grouped with it, so they cannot be further debated at this stage, but I am prepared to allow a Division on amendment (a), which stands in the name of Mr. John McDonnell, if he wishes to press it to a vote.
	After the questions on new clause 1 have been disposed of, including the Question that the clause be added to the Bill, we will come to the debate headed by new clause 3, on the European convention on human rights. The promoters' other amendments in the group headed by new clause 1, which I call to be moved, will be moved formally as and when we reach them in going through the amendment paper. Unless the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to the matters immediately before the Housethe business remaining from the previous time that the House satI would prefer to take it after we have decided on those matters.

John McDonnell: My point of order relates to this evening's business of the House and this evening's process.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the indulgence of the House, I shall therefore take that point of order after I have disposed of those other matters, which follow on from the previous time that the House sat. That is the logical way in which to proceed. Do you wish to press amendment (a) to a vote, Mr. McDonnell?

John McDonnell: Yes.

New Clause 1
	  
	Exclusion of Crown Property

Amendment proposed: (a) to new clause 1.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 357.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The House divided: Ayes 341, Noes 44.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On today's agenda, a motion from the Prime Minister has been allowed that the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill may proceed to any hour. I thought that, except in the severest need, the House had decided against all-night sittings as part of its modernisation programme. It is also clear from the agenda that we are not even able to debate the Prime Minister's proposal to force the Bill through tonight.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that, or investigate whether the motion has been placed on the agenda at the direct request of the City corporation, because I have evidence to prove that it has? On repeated occasions we have been informed that this is a private Bill and not a Government Bill, yet the Prime Minister's name is now associated with it. What status does the Bill have? Has the Prime Minister made any declarations of interest in relation to the Bill?
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you confirm that I have raised my concerns with the Speaker about the procedures associated with the Bill, including the fact that I have been offered inducements to drop my opposition to it? Can you also confirm the last occasion on which this procedure was used? I believe that it was 1987. Will you reconsider the procedure for private Bills, to prevent this abuse of the House by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is taking away one of the last few mechanisms by which a Back Bencher can exert influence on a promoter of a Billthat is, to delay the legislation to ensure that amendments are considered seriously.
	Even if we were to go through the night, none of us is willing to put at risk tomorrow's business, which is a debate on the middle east and one of the most important issues facing the world today. I give you notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I advise Labour Members to withdraw from the debate, because I believe that the process has been corrupted and tainted by the Prime Minister's intervention. A number of Bills have been allowed through the Housethis one in particularwhen votes have been sold to business friends who have donated to both parties. It is a corruption of the worst kind to debase Parliament in that way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that the Chair cannot possibly comment on certain matters. The reasons why a business motion appears on the Order Paper cannot be questioned by the Chair: it is there, and that is the fact we are dealing with. It is certainly not without precedent for a business motion to be employed in the course of private legislation.
	As for the House considering its methods of dealing with private business, it is always open to the House to take an initiative to examine procedures, just as is happening over public business on the initiative of the Modernisation Committee. I do not think that I can substantially add to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I press you on the point that we investigate the communications that have taken place between the City corporation and the Prime Minister on this matter, in relation to what representations have been made with the effect that he has placed this motion on the agenda tonight, any financial links with the corporation of London, any businesses that will gain votes as a result of this legislation, if it goes through, and any links with both the main political parties as a result?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The nature of the hon. Gentleman's complaint is such that, if he has evidence to substantiate it or believes that the matter needs to be investigated, it would be more a matter for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that the Chair cannot question why a particular motion is on the Order Paper. The Chair must deal with the business that it finds on the Order Paper for the day.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I therefore have a response in due course to my point that the Bill should now become a Government Bill because the motion is in the name of the Prime Minister? In a series of debates in the House, we have been informed that this is a private Bill that has no association with the Government and no Minister in charge, yet the Prime Minister has put his name to the motion to secure the Bill tonight. Can we have a response from the Prime Minister today, if he can be brought to the House, to explain his motivation for putting his name to the motion; or can we consider the procedure whereby we no longer define as private business that with which Ministers are closely associated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The status of the Bill is unchanged by the appearance on the Order Paper of that business motion. There have been occasions in the past when a private Bill has ceased its passage and has reappeared as a Government Bill, but that does not apply in this case.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we therefore clarify and investigate the relationship between the City corporation and No. 10, particularly in respect of communications with regard to this Bill and related matters, such as the funding of the dome by the City corporation or the substantial investment by the City corporation in terms of the wining and dining of successive Ministers and of Opposition spokesmen and Back Benchers? Can we investigate that relationship to establish whether the Bill has been tainted by unfair inducements?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Whether we can we do so is a matter that the hon. Gentleman must be advised to pursue with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Kelvin Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a new experience for me and perhaps for many other hon. Members who may have been here as long as I havefive years. This is obviously a Bill that now has Government backing. Would it not have been in order, when it became clear that the Government backed what is essentially a private Bill, for the Speaker to advise the Government to come clean at an early stage and make it Government business, which would have saved the House and many hon. Members like me a great deal of time spent debating the Bill in this Chamber, in the belief that it was genuinely a private Bill, and in debating fundamental issues of democracy?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has no such role in proceedings of this kind. It is not without precedent that a business motion has been put on the Order Paper to deal with private legislation.

Robert Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has made several allegations of inducements having been made, if that were trueI hesitate to say that any hon. Member is dishonourable, but nevertheless the suspicion exists that if there have been inducements, hon. Members may be influencedwould it not be right, until investigations have taken place, for us to adjourn on this Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will maintain his hesitation before making such a suggestion about right hon. and hon. Members. There is now a clear procedure, as we have a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as to where any hon. Member who has cause to believe that anything improper has taken place should direct such a complaint.

John McDonnell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I repeat the point that I made earlier. I shall withdraw from this debate because I have been offered inducements. I believe that the process has been corrupted as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention today to ensure that this Bill goes through. It is meant to be private business, not Government business, but the Prime Minister has personally intervened to undermine any prospect of the Back Bencher exerting influence, when it should be the Back Bencher's right to exert influence on private business. This process is tainted and corrupted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that I can add to the hon. Gentleman's statement.

Andrew MacKinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to place on record my sincere view that this is a very bad day for Parliament. It makes a charade of our law-making process and it is disgraceful that the Government machine and the Minister can sit here and railroad through legislation that, in an ordinary, free debating environment, would not get on the statute book. This Bill extends the property franchise, which, almost without fail, Labour Members have opposed on other occasions when they have been on the hustings seeking election to this place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That was not a point of order; it was a statement.

Mike Hancock: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me and right hon. and hon. Members who are present whether there is a procedure that we can adopt that would stop this debate proceeding tonight and allow some of the serious allegations that have been made to be properly investigated? Failure to do that will taint whatever happens at the outcome of this debate. Does a procedure exist that will allow us to stop what we are doing at this moment and return to it when the issues that have been raised have been properly investigated by the relevant authorities?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not believe that what has been said amounts to a good cause for discontinuing proceedings on this Bill this evening.

Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I heard you say at one point that there were precedents for the way in which this procedure was being dealt with tonight. That is true because it was used several times in the course of the 18 years that the Tories were in power. What saddens me is that, previously, when private business was extended during the night, including the Eastbourne Harbour Bill and all the rest, it was not about property rights or democracy. There were also several imported coal harbour Bills, which we managed to hold up for several years. Although they were important and were debated through the night, the truth is that they were not of the same dimension as this Bill, which we have debated not just tonight but for three years since it was first introduced.
	This Bill is about people's voting rights and about extending power to corporations. It is close to the hearts of those of us who have fought for democratic rights over the years. There should therefore be no comparison with those ports Billswhich we opposed throughout the nightas bad as they were, and with the Eastbourne Harbour Bill, which was a disgrace, and for which Mrs. Thatcher stayed up all night and kept the Tories here as well. I can go through the gamut of things that occurred at that time, but this Bill is about the rights of people to vote or not to vote, which is a disgrace. This Bill should have remained a private Bill and should not have had extended to it the powers of the Government. That is why this is an extremely sad day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will have heard what the hon. Gentleman says. We must now proceed.

Clause 2
	  
	Interpretation

Amendments made: Nos. 1 to 8.[Sir George Young.]

Clause 3
	  
	Qualification of voters at ward elections

Amendment made: No. 149 and Nos. 10 to 12. [Sir. George Young.]

Clause 4
	  
	Allocation of appointments

Amendments made: Nos. 13 and 15.[Sir George Young.]

Clause 5
	  
	Requirements as to connection of persons appointed with the city

Amendments made: Nos. 16 and 17.[Sir George Young.]

Clause 6
	  
	Exclusion of Crown property

Amendment made: No. 19.[Sir George Young.]

Clause 8
	  
	Ward lists: qualifying bodies

Amendments made: Nos. 20 to 22.[Sir George Young.]

Schedule 1
	  
	Rights to appoint voters

Amendment made: No. 25.[Sir George Young.]

Schedule 3
	  
	Repeals

Amendments made: Nos. 27, 29 and 30.[Sir George Young.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

George Young: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	It is often said that the House does not discharge its task of scrutinising legislation adequately. However, this Bill has been debated for more than 25 hours and over a period of three and a half years. In the course of those debates, it could be said that more or less every permutation and combination of circumstances that might disclose grounds for objection to the Bill have been articulated. I do not propose to detain the House by trawling through the issues, but I want to touch on one or two that have been raised from time to time.
	The fact that the City wards that are primarily resident in nature will remain so has been stated many times. The point has been made, however, by Labour Members that the increased business element will alter the nature of the common council even though the residents' role in terms of their voting strength will be preserved. The proposals in the Bill have been promoted in the light of a falling entitlement of business to participate as businesses have been incorporated. The proposals are designed to restore the equilibrium, not to change it.
	The promoters have made substantive changes to the Bill. The replacement of the entitlement to appoint on the basis of rateable values by one based on work force size is particularly noteworthy. Although the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) does not care to acknowledge it, the move is consistent with views that he has expressed. The City of London Labour party has been more straightforward in its response. In reacting to the change, its chairman, whom the hon. Gentleman chose not to quote, described the proposals in a press release as radical.
	One issue that preoccupied the promoters in developing the Bill was the possibility of an electoral qualification for City electors that could be conferred directly on people working in City businesses rather than having a nomination system. A commuter vote of 300,000 or more would, however, completely swamp the existing resident vote and would be unacceptable, not least to residents. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) may wish to say a word or two about the interests of residents.
	Any selection of the type of commuter given the vote to bring down the electorate from 300,000 to preserve a reasonable relationship with the existing resident vote would be arbitrary and highly discriminatory. It certainly would not be representative of the composition of work forces, a specific requirement of the present Bill.
	I wish to thank all those on both sides of the House who have supported the Bill during its three-and-a-half-year passage through the House. I hope that the end of that process is in sight. I will not detain the House further. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mark Field: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), I shall not detain the House for long. However, it is only fair that I say a few words.
	As promised last November when the Bill was discussed in the House, I have carried out an extensive survey of City of London residents and asked for the views of most of them about issues relating to law and order and to drugs. It is interesting that more than two thirds of the respondents were entirely silent on City of London corporation affairs. Their priorities were obviously elsewhere, and I am sorry that it has been such a tortuous effort over the past four years to get the Bill through. Many respondents wrote positively about the corporation and it is only right that I should point that out. Some residents, of course, had concerns about what they perceived to be the anti-democratic elements of the election process, but they were only a small minority.
	I want to take this opportunity to remind the House and, particularly, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who unfortunately is not in his seat, that in the four main wards, councillors are elected by a resident majority. If the residents in the wards around the Barbican and Golden lane considered themselves under threat from the reforms that have been proposed, their concerns would have been felt by the sitting members of the common council who represent those residential wards.
	We might also reflect on the fact that four of the 27 sitting members in the corporation of the City of London and representing those residential wards are, in fact, non-resident business people themselves. Eight residents represent business wards. That hardly discloses the concerns between the interests of residential and business voters on the common council that have been emphasised in the criticisms that have been made in the past. The relentless pursuit of objections to the Bill does not reflect a groundswell of opinion of the City residents whom I represent in this place.
	Those objections certainly do not represent the views of business. Those who have criticised the Bill tonight and over the past four years have objected to the continued existence of the City as a separate administrative area. In that connection, it is worth repeating the comments that the chairman of the City of London Labour party made on the record before the Select Committee in 1999. He said:
	The majority of these citizens who reside in the City do not want the City of London abolished. They do not want it attached to another constituency. I think it is fairly clear that they do not want that.
	For the benefit of hon. Members, I should also like to say something about progress on the other reforms that the City is pursuing alongside those anticipated by the Bill. Mindful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of your earlier comments to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, I will seek to remain in order by being extremely brief.
	The promoter has undertaken considerable work in the review of its ward boundaries. A review panel was established, comprising the recorder and the common serjeantthe two most senior judges at the Old Baileyand the City's town clerk following advice from the local government boundary commission. Following public notices and a public consultation exercise, the review of the internal boundaries of the first two wardsAldersgate and Cripplegateis now almost complete.
	A summary of the final recommendations was published as recently as March this year and sent to all voters, resident and non-resident, who would be affected by the changes. A more detailed report was also sent to all members of the common council and all those who had made representations to the town clerk at previous stages of the review. The final recommendations are currently out to consultation, and it is anticipated that they and any further representations will be submitted to the court of common council before the summer.
	In addition, a City residents' liaison unit has been established as part of the package to reinforce the existing liaison arrangements between corporation departments and the City's residents. Other measures coupled with that include the introduction of regular consultation meetings, attended by the town clerk and other senior members and officers, and guaranteed resident representation on the corporation's non-ward committees. For example, four seats on the policy and resources committee are now reserved for such resident members.
	A further undertaking given by the promoter was that the number of members of the City corporation would be reduced to 100 by the time the new arrangements came into operation. I can report that the number of members has been already been reduced by 18 to 112, and that process continues.
	As a result, the Bill represents the right way forward for the City of London and the resident population is entirely happy. It seems ironic that some of the great largesse of the City corporation often goes to the areas such as Hampstead heath, Highgate woods and Queen's park. Enormous sums are spent on those most wonderful open spaces in central London, and the City corporation puts an enormous amount of time and money into its London gateway with the east of London representation. I do not wish to detain the House any further, other than to say that I hope that hon. Members will join me in voting for the Bill on Third Reading.

Nick Raynsford: I, too, do not intend to detain the House, but it is right that there should be a brief comment from the Government before the completion of Third Reading.
	The Bill has been considered in great detail for some three and a half years, as the right hon. Member for NorthWest Hampshire (Sir George Young), who is its sponsor, has clearly said. There have been protracted discussions in Committee and debates in the Chamber on several occasions. All the points of principle that relate to the Bill have been exhaustively considered, and the House has certainly done justice to its scrutiny function.
	The Bill represents a measure of reform to the constitutional arrangements in the City. The Government have welcomed the fact that the City has promoted legislation to face up to the need to put its governance on a more modern footing. We believe that the Bill represents a step in the right direction and that it will make the governance of the City more modern and more in touch with life in the City today. However, the City is doing, and must do, other things to take forward its reform agenda, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). I hope that the City will wish to pursue that reform agenda.
	The City corporation is a unique institution. That reflects the fact that it covers a business district with a relatively small number of residents, so it is not possible for the City to copy the electoral system that applies elsewhere in London and the country. The principle of business representation is uniquely appropriate to the City, but it must be reformed.
	The current system allows only sole traders and partners of City-based businesses to vote. The incorporated companies that play an increasing part in the life of the City have no equivalent right. Other anomalies, such as the possibility to vote twice under current arrangements, will be ended by the Bill. If the Bill were not to proceed, those undesirable practices would be perpetuated. Quite simply, the choice is between reforming the City corporation and maintaining the status quo. In that context, the Government have no doubt whatever that it is right to support reform by supporting the Bill.
	The remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in his numerous points of order at the beginning of these debates are deeply regrettable. He made a series of wholly unfounded and false allegations, imputing motives to the Prime Minister and the Government for which there is no basis whatever and which I unequivocally rebut. The Government's concern is simply to assist the passage of a private Bill, which represents a modest measure of reform that most sensible people recognise as a step in the right direction. The Bill will not necessarily provide a long-term solution because of the further measures to which I have referred, but it is a step in the right direction and it is right that the House should agree to its Third Reading tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 30.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

MALTON HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Dan Norris.]

John Greenway: It is both a pleasure and a relief to speak to the Adjournment at such an early hour. Whenever I am lucky in the ballot for the 30-minute Adjournment debate, the House either sits throughout the night or the main business collapses. Until the moment arrives no one is ever sure which alternative will prevail.
	The first Adjournment debate that I initiated in this Chamber was on the Nestle takeover of the Rowntree factory. Everyone expected that the main business would end at midnight but, as you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speakerlike me, you were a Back Bencher at the timethere were 43 Divisions on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill and the Adjournment began at 5.30 in the morning.
	I rather feared that I would have to keep the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), up all nightor rather that some of her colleagues would have been here all night and she would have had to wait around for a long time. I was going to suggest that the wait for my Adjournment debate was not dissimilar to the wait that some patients experience for their operation. However, in the event, I feel as though I have been given my operation ahead of my appointment with the consultant.
	The issue that I want to raise is important none the less. I am sure that the Minister will have been briefed and will understand why it is so important. Our community hospitals are held in great affection by our constituents; Malton hospital is no exception.
	Two or three years ago, I visited our former colleague, Sir Giles Shaw, at the hospital. Sadly, he died about 18 months ago after a stroke. I shall never forget my visit to Sir Giles; it was a happy occasion. He said, John, this is a great place. You are lucky to have it and I know that you will do everything you can to fight for it while you are the Member of Parliament. I did not think that circumstances would require us to have a debate of this nature at that time, but I am galvanised by the words of Sir Giles.
	Malton is one of three community hospitals within the Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care NHS trust. That creates a difficulty. Scarborough is a small district hospital. Although the population of the area that it covers is not high, the geographical area that it covers is huge and it has to look after three community hospitals. Malton hospital is effectively run by the general practitioners at the Derwent practice in Malton, who work as clinical assistants. I have formed a good relationship with them over many years, especially as various developments have taken place at the hospital.
	One recent development prompted me to request the debate, although as I have more time than expected I will take the opportunity to raise one or two other issues as well. Trust managers decided in mid March to cease all general anaesthetic operations at Malton with effect from 1 April. That caused shock and alarm in the local community. The letter sent by the trust to the senior partner at the Derwent practice said that a shortage of consultant anaesthetists meant that it could no longer provide back-up cover for GA operations at Malton hospital.
	On 22 February, however, the trust sent out a staff bulletin in which it suggested that the difficulty with continuing GA operations at Malton and the two other community hospitals at Whitby and Bridlington was based on concern about clinical governance. So the issue at that time was whether it was safe to continue GA operations at community hospitals. That caused confusion and we remain confused about what lies behind the decision.
	I have made it clear to the trust that we are prepared to accept that the reason for the decision is the shortage of consultant anaesthetists, and I want the Minister to use all her good offices to ensure that the vacancies are filled as quickly as possible. In a written answer from one of her colleagues last week, I was told that more than 1,000 extra anaesthetic specialistsI am not sure that they will all be consultantsare being trained and made available to the NHS. However, it seems that they do not want to live in Scarborough or the Malton area, which is a pity given the quality of life there. Although I accept that their long-term clinical career might be more challenging at another hospital, our area would be a good place for those at the lower end of the learning curve. The shortage needs to be addressed. The local community will test the Government's commitment to the health service and their argument that things are improving by how quickly those posts are filled.
	The serious question in the minds of patients and medical staff is that although GA operations are suspended at Malton, they continue at Whitby and Bridlington community hospitals. That is partly because patients have nowhere else to goScarborough does not have the capacity to provide the theatre time required. Given that there is a lingering suspicion that it might not be safe to perform GA operations at community hospitalsthe clinical governance issueI suspect that some patients will wonder why they are being sent from Malton to Whitby or Bridlington where the same circumstances apply.
	Will the Minister confirm that the withdrawal of GA operations is only a suspension of the facility at Malton? That is important. I am sure from your long experience as a Member of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you appreciate that if the services provided at a local hospital are changed there should at least be a public consultation involving discussions with GPs, patients and the community health council locally. There has been none of that.
	In my early days as a Member of Parliament, the accident and emergency centre at Malton was downgraded to a minor injuries unitagain, largely for reasons of clinical governance and staffing. There was such alarm and concern that some of my political opponents even suggested that the hospital was about to close, although nothing was further from the truth. I must stress that people are not worried that Malton will close; their concern relates to the services that it will provide. When the accident and emergency centre was downgraded, a public meeting at the local hall in Malton was attended by about 1,000 people. I am sure that there will be a similar interest if and when we consult on this latest development.
	I want to concentrate on the future. Not only were GA operations unexpectedly withdrawn on 1 April, but the hospital became part of the Scarborough, Ryedale and Whitby primary care trust. A number of community hospitals in other parts of the country experienced a similar change. That development is working well in general. It enables the community hospital to concentrate on diagnostic issues and makes the best use of the facility, so freeing up time that can be spent on more serious matters at district hospitals.
	The Minister must expect the chief executive of the PCT, the trust members and doctors to have their own agenda for the future. It was certainly not in their plans that GA operations would be withdrawn on the very day that they took over responsibility for the hospital. Even given the background of the clinical governance issue, they must have expected three to five years in which to plan a withdrawal or contraction of GA operations at Malton.
	The PCT, the doctors and patients are worried that no alternative was agreed in advance. Some 640 patients were treated under general anaesthetic at Malton hospital in the past year. In my 15 years in the House I have worked well with the managers at the Scarborough hospital trust and have a great deal of time for them. Although they will do their best, a strain will nevertheless be placed on alternative facilities. People will have to travel long distances for relatively minor operations that cannot be performed under local anaesthetic, which is the case with many procedures.
	Some of the operations are not urgent; they concern what the medical profession calls lumps and bumps, such as minor problems with varicose veins. However, many gynaecological operations are carried out and, on a more difficult point, a number of women have terminations under general anaesthetic at Malton hospital. Clearly, they cannot wait for treatment but have to be seen and dealt with promptly, whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation.
	There is, therefore, concern that Scarborough hospital and the trust can cope with the situation. It is accepted that there is a lack of anaesthetist cover, but up to now the telephone back-up cover has worked extremely well. I am told that it is unlikely to continue because of the shortage of consultant anaesthetists, but I stress to the Minister that while the back-up cover clearly is important, it is the GPs, as clinical assistants, who are doing the work. I understand that it is proposed that one of the doctors who provides the anaesthetic service should also do sessions at Scarborough to ensure that he is thoroughly up to date with all the clinical procedures and can work well with the consultant anaesthetists based there.
	I seek clarification on another issue. Although consultant anaesthetists do not come to Malton for GA-based operations that are done routinely in the mid-week, half-day sessions, they have been coming to Malton on Sundays for the waiting list initiative. It will stick in people's throats if they discover that routine operations have been withdrawn, but consultants are coming to the hospital for GA sessions on a Sunday and opening theatres that are normally closed simply to do operations under the waiting list initiative. I am sure that the Minister will understand my concern about that.
	I mentioned that the primary care trust has its own plans. It is important that we have public consultation about a strategic plan for Malton hospital for the next five years. If there is to be a controlled withdrawal of some of the services at peripheral sites that we have been used to, in tandem with the restructuring of service provision, the public must go along with the plans. For example, as I said, there may be more diagnostic services at Malton, and some surgery may be restricted as the day surgery unit at Scarborough hospital is built up. The public must be reassured that they will receive treatment in a timely fashion and that all the changes are intended to improve not only financial efficiency but the quality and standard of treatment. People understand what is happening, but they must be taken along with the process.
	As I have indicated, people will find it difficult to understand why it is not good enough to do GA-based operations at one peripheral unit at Malton, but those operations may continue at Whitby and Bridlington. I find it deeply unsatisfactory that individual clinicians are making what are effectively strategic decisions that have profound and wide-ranging implications for patient care.
	So far as the PCT is concerned, I would like to think that as the health service develops, we could have more flexibility within service provision and about who is responsible for employing whom. Someone stopped me in the street at the weekend, knowing that I had secured this debate, and said, I gather that the primary care trust now runs the hospital. Why can't it employ its own anaesthetists? That is a very good question. It highlights the fact that NHS structures are too rigid, and we need to bring down some of the barriers. I sincerely believe that community hospitals have an exciting future, but flexible thinking and attitudes are necessary if they are to realise their full potential.
	I draw the Minister's attention to another aspect of Malton hospital's future. The two main wards are what are known, in the medical world, as Nightingale wards. I understand that when the Nightingale ward modernisation programme, if that is the correct title, was first mooted, the impression was givenalthough I cannot say whether this is accuratethat the wards would be modernised. Sadly, however, that has not yet occurred. I believe that the first application was not successful, but the Scarborough trust is trying again. The sum involved is 1.3 million. It would significantly reassure the people of the Malton area if the Minister announced today when she thinks that money will be provided.
	From the title of the debate as on the Order Paper, The Future of Malton Hospital, someone who did not understand the issues might have thought that the hospital was to close, but that is not on the agenda. We have been over that matter in the past few years, and we persuaded Ministers in the previous Conservative Government, in particular my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Freeman, that community hospitals had a vibrant future. However, it is harder to convince the public of that when decisions are made out of expediency because of shortages of clinical staff. I believe that Malton hospital can have a great future, but that can be achieved only if managers and clinicians in the Scarborough trust and the primary care trust work together.
	We know that the Scarborough trust has problems. Its budget is constantly overspent. The recent report on the trust did not make totally favourable reading, as the Minister knows.
	I end with a plealet us not sacrifice the work that Malton is doing, and that it can do in the future, to resolve the problems of the Scarborough trust.

Hazel Blears: Like the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), I have the unexpected pleasure of speaking in this debate early in the evening. Hon. Members on both sides of the House talk more sense at a reasonable time of day.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. He is, rightly, eager to ensure that the highest possible standards of health care services are available to his constituents. I know that he has taken a keen interest in the services that Malton hospital provides. He has tabled parliamentary questions about it and written to my ministerial colleagues, and he has been assiduous in following up these issues. I reassure him that the Government are committed to providing high quality services for everybody, no matter where they live.
	We want to provide services that are as close to people's homes as possible but that are also safe and viable. Striking the right balance between local access and high quality has always created tension in the NHS; it is a problem that we continue to wrestle with, and its impact on local services is the subject of many Adjournment debates. Getting that balance right is not without its difficulties. It is fair to say that, if possible, most of us want services almost on our doorsteps, yet we also want them to be safe and of the highest possible standard. Trying to explain to the public and patients the difficulty of striking that balance is one of the challenges that faces us all. The hon. Gentleman clearly set out the background. He raised a number of specific queries and I shall certainly try to respond to them during my speech.
	The NHS plan, which was published in July 2000, set out an ambitious vision of a service designed around the needs of patients. That new approach is aimed at trying to ensure that we achieve high quality national standards, that the services are fast and convenient, and that we use modern methods to provide care where and when it is needed. To deliver that, I genuinely believe that we needed a fundamental shift in power and resources to the front line. That is why we have, in just the past couple of weeks, established 302 primary care trusts which cover all parts of England and are in the driving seat in the provision of health services locally.
	From 1 April, ownership of Malton hospital transferred to the newly established Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale primary care trust. That locally based organisation will be able to ensure that Malton hospital continues to have a strong future, serving the needs of its rural population. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has emphasised the fact that we see a strong and vibrant future for Malton hospital. We are certainly not in the business of seeing services reduced or the hospital being in any danger. I have no doubt that things at the hospital will change, but it certainly has a very useful future in providing health services to local people.
	The provision of comprehensive and accessible services is right at the heart of the NHS. We want to try to apply those principles to local services, and to try to strike a balance between convenience and the requirement to ensure safety and quality. Achieving that balance in the case of Malton hospital has led to the need to change the provision of anaesthetic services there.
	The Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Health Care NHS trust's department of anaesthesia provides a full range of anaesthetic services at Scarborough hospital, which is the main district general hospital in the area. For many years, it has provided anaesthesia for day-case and overnight-stay patients in community hospitals in Bridlington, Whitby and Maltonall of which are approximately 20 miles from the main hospital.
	Much of the anaesthetic service at the community hospitals has been provided by GPs, who work alone as clinical assistants under distant consultant provision from Scarborough. The consultant anaesthetists at Scarborough hospital have become increasingly worried that, owing to the shortage of staff, they are unable even to provide that remote supervision of all the peripheral sites. The trust is trying to provide the highest quality services possible across the whole area for which it is responsible. The decision to withdraw general anaesthetic surgery at Malton was taken because Malton has the lowest level of such activity of all three sites. So the decision is very practical and designed to affect the least number of patients.
	The problem in question is really the lack of qualified staff, which is endemic in the health service. The main problem now facing the health service is not necessarily the provision of extra money. People throughout the country will say that they see the resources coming through. The NHS is growing faster than any other health service in Europe, and has undergone the longest sustained period of growth that we have ever known. However, one constraint is the capacity for trained and qualified staff across a range of specialties. Increasing the work force is thus a top priority for us.
	We have said that, by 2004, there will be 7,500 more consultants, 2,000 more GPs, 20,000 extra nurses, 6,500 extra therapists and 1,000 more medical school places on top of the extra 1,100 already announced. That is a huge programme of growth. In 1996, there were 2,629 consultant anaesthetists. Five years later, there were 3,549an extra 900but that is simply not enough. We estimate that, over the next nine or 10 years, we will need another 2,540 consultant anaesthetists, but as we expect 1,850 extra, it is looking as if there will be a shortfall. We therefore need a massive recruitment campaign.
	I know that the trust in Scarborough has been very active in trying to recruit extra staff. Mrs. Collinson of the trust has said:
	This is a lovely part of the country to live and work and we have good educational and health services, and moderately priced housing.
	She is keen to try to attract people to the area. Indeed, I believe that representatives of the trust are going to a careers fair in Berlin fairly shortly to see whether they can recruit some consultants. There is a great deal of activity.
	The trust currently has an establishment for 10 consultant anaesthetists. One post has been vacant for just over a year, another became vacant on 1 April, a third will become vacant in June, and a retirement is anticipated in late summer. Against an establishment of seven middle-grade doctors, the trust currently has only three substantive appointments and four fairly long-standing vacancies. So the situation is very serious, as the hon. Member for Ryedale has said. The shortage of anaesthetists means that even remote supervision from the Scarborough site, with occasional visits to the community hospitals, is currently unachievable.
	The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me whether, if we are successful in recruiting the extra anaesthetists, it would be possible for general anaesthetic surgery to recommence at Malton hospital. Discussions have been taking place with the GP anaesthetists who currently carry out the service, and two issues have arisen. The trust is very keen that GP anaesthetists should retain their skills, so that it will not be impossible to resume the service simply because of the passage of time. It is therefore making arrangements for GPs to go to Scarborough to keep their clinical practice up to date, which is important.
	The trust is also mindful of the guidance of the royal colleges. The move is to provide GA services in an environment which includes on-site intensive care and back-up services. I would not at this point rule out the resumption of GA services at Malton, but the trust must be mindful of royal college guidance as well as the need for accessibility and for local convenience for the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I have no doubt that discussions will continue, but I want to ensure that they are not pre-empted by the loss of skills among clinicians who are currently carrying out the work. It is therefore important that we keep their skills up to date.
	The PCT, like the hospital trust, is disappointed that staff shortages have precipitated the withdrawal of general anaesthetic surgery at Malton hospital, but supports the operational decision in the interests of patient safety. No long-term plan has been agreed between the PCT and the acute trust. Short-term difficulties have precipitated the change in service provision.
	Any strategic decision and associated significant service changes would be subject to public consultation andif the legislation before the House has been enactedlocal authority scrutiny too. I give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking because, like him, I feel that local people must have trust and confidence in their local services. Involving them in full discussion of the available options is the right way to proceed. Local accountability is key in such circumstances, and it is all too easy for local communities to lose confidence in local services if they are not involved in discussions.
	Where significant change is proposed and a consultation process takes place, that process will in future be led either by the local PCT, or by a group of PCTs if the issue crosses several boundaries. At the end of the consultation process, the PCT must take into account all the comments it has received. If, as we hope there will be, there is local agreement, the change can go ahead, but if local agreement is not achieved, the matter can be referred to Ministers either by the community health council, if that is still the proper body, or by the local authority overview and scrutiny committee, after implementation of the provisions of the NHS Reform and Health Care Professions Bill.
	If the matter is referred to Ministers, we will take account of all the available evidence. We hope to have the independent reconfiguration panel up and running soon. The panel will be able to provide independent advice to Ministers, and help us to create a more coherent framework for future service changes. In that way, local people will be able to feel that the process is fair, transparent and based on established criteria.
	The introduction of the new PCTs will enable local communities to commission appropriate services for local people. The hon. Member for Ryedale is right to mention flexibility and new ways of working. The decision to devolve resources and power to front-line local organisations will result in greater diversity in the ways in which services are delivered to local people. Local communities are often innovative and imaginative because they are aware of local needs, so giving them freedom to establish a wider range of ways in which to deliver care is a good step forward.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that the new PCT is committed to ensuring that Malton hospital has a vibrant future in which it continues to serve local people, and that the development of appropriate services continues. The PCT has advised me that there are no plans to withdraw further services from Malton hospital.
	The hon. Gentleman is aware of the current work, initiated by the PCT, on the longer-term future of Malton and Whitby hospitals. As he said, that work includes a bid to modernise the Nightingale wards at Malton hospital. The proposal is to extend the existing Fitzwilliam ward, provide the correct match of single bedrooms and two and four-bedded bays, together with the appropriate support facilities, and ensure segregation of the sexes, thus enhancing dignity and proper patient care. The bid is being assessed against the national criteria, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that the results of the bidding process will be announced very soon; but I must ask him to be patient a little longer. I am informed that the announcement is imminent.
	It is important that hon. Members have the opportunity to debate important proposals that affect local people. Representing local communities' interests and concerns is one of the most important jobs that we as Members of Parliament do, so the hon. Gentleman was right to secure this Adjournment debate.
	I understand that all the patients who will be affected by the decision to suspend general anaesthetics have been contacted by the trust and supported by representatives in ensuring that their future needs are met. It is important that that be done while recruitment activities for anaesthetic services in the trust continue apace. I hope that those efforts are successful.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that general anaesthetic procedures that continue at the other hospitals do so safely. Local people may feel that procedures at Bridlington and Whitby are no longer safe, but I am told that there is a consultant anaesthetist on site at Bridlington for approximately 75 per cent. of the general anaesthetic lists, and that at Whitby the trust's medical director has agreed to take responsibility for the continuation of GP anaesthetists' lists there for a further 12 months, while certain measures are taken. There is adequate consultant cover for the other two hospitals; unfortunately, it has not been possible to retain that at Malton.
	I am delighted that the hon. Member for Ryedale has been able to raise such important issues. I hope that he will receive a response to the Nightingale wards bid very soon. In the meantime, I hope that he will feel able to assure his constituents that they will continue to have access to safe, high quality services at the local acute trust.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Nine o'clock.